LIBRA.RY 

OF   THE 

Theological   Seminary, 

PRINCETON,    N.J. 

BV  811  /H34)jf' 
Hall,  Edwin?  1802-1877. 
An  exposition  of  the  law  of 
baptism 


AN  EXPOSITION 


LAW  OE  BAPTISM; 


AS  IT  REGARDS 


THE  MODE  AND  THE  SUBJECTS. 


BY  EDV/iN  HALL, 

?ASTOR  OF  THE  FIRST  CONGREGATIONAL  CHURCH,  NORWALK,  C^      «. 


FOURTH  EDITION,  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED 


KEW  YORK: 
CHARLES     SCRIBNER, 

145     NASSAU     STREET. 

1852. 


Entered  acccrdirig  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  184G;  by 

EDWIN  HALL, 

Tn  the  C'erlv's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States,  for  the 

District  of  Connecticut. 


S.  W.  BENEDICT, 
Stcr.  aud  Print.,  16  Spruce-street. 


"  :^' 


ADVERTISEIMENT  TO  THE  FIRST  EDITION. 


The  following  Discourses  were  written  for  the 
Defence  of  the  truth  in  the  author's  own  congregation. 
They  are  printed  as  they  were  preached  ;  save  a  few  in- 
considerable corrections,  and  the  addition  of  a  few  notes. 
They  are  published  at  the  very  general  desire  of  the 
people  for  whom  they  were  written.  They  contain 
some  local  allusions,  and  some  references  to  the  present 
times  :  but  as  they  may  be  both  local  and  ephemeral  in 
their  circulation,  the  author  chooses  not  to  alter  them. 

NorwaJk^  August^  1S40. 


ADVERTISEMENT  TO  THE  THIRD  EDITION. 


The  unexpected  favor  with  which  the  former  editions 
of  this  work  were  received,  and  the  continued  demand 
for  it,  have  induced  the  author  to  prepare  another 
edition.  In  doing  this,  he  has  embraced  the  opportu- 
nity to  make  such  improvements  as  further  investiga- 
tion and  more  mature  consideration  suggested.  He 
has  also  gladly  availed  himself  of  the  criticisms  of  Mr. 
Carson,  who  honored  the  work  with  his  review.  Such 
reply  as  the  author  deemed  the  review  of  Mr.  Carson 
to  require,  he  has  given  in  notes  attached  to  the  places 
of  the  text  in  question.  He  has  done  the  same  with  the 
review  of  an  x^merican  Baptist,  who  writes  under  the 
name  of  ''  Transmontanus."  There  are  also  included,  in 
this  edition,  several  dissertations  (taken  chitfly  from  the 
author's  work  on  Baptist  Errors)  upon  particular  points, 
which  could  not  be  so  fully  discussed  in  the  current  of 
the  discourses. 

N'orwalk,  March^  1846. 


INDEX. 

Page 

I.  Principles  of  Interpretation,       -        -        -        -  7 

II.  Scriptural  Modes  of  Baptism,          ...  45 

III.  Dissertations  upon  particular  points,  touch- 

ing THE  interpretation  OF  THE  WORD  BaPTIZE  : 

1.  Classic    Greek  and   the    Greek  of  the   New 

Testament, 95 

2.  Mr.  Judd  on  Mark  vii.  4,       -         -         -         -  100 

3.  Dr.  Campbell  on  Mark  vii.  4,  and  Luke  xi.  38,  101 

4.  Prof.  Ripley  on  Mark  vii.  4,  and  Luke  xi.  38,  103 

5.  Baptist  Missionary  Translations,     -         -         -  109 

6.  Scriptural  Idea  of  Baptism,           -         -         -  113 

7.  Translating  the  word  Baptize,          -         -         -  117 

8.  Transferring  words  from  one  language  to  an- 

other,           122 

9.  Martin  Luther's  Version,         ...         -  125*» 

10.  Dutch,  Danish,  and  Swedish  Versions,         -  130 

11.  The  Vulgate, 132 

IV.  Scriptural  authority  for  Infant  Baptism,  -  136 
V.  Objections  answered.     The  utility  of  Infant 

Baptism  vindicated,   -                 .        _        .        .  179 


L 

MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

THE  PRINCIPLES  OF    INTERPR&a:ATION. 


MATTHEW,    XXVIII.  19. 

Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


The  disciples  of  Christ  are  to  be  baptized.  So  all 
evangelical  Christians  agree  :  and  such  is  the  law  of 
Christ.  But  while  there  is  an  entire  agreement  with 
regard  to  the  authority  of  the  law,  there  has  arisen  a 
difference  of  opinion  concerning  its  interpretation.  All 
the  leading  denominations  of  Protestant  Christendom, 
save  one  (and  it  is  to  Protestant  Christendom,  if  any- 
where on  earth,  that  we  are  to  look  for  intelligent  views 
of  doctrine  and  of  order,  and  for  evangelical  obedience), 
all  the  leading  denominations  of  Protestant  Christendom, 
save  one,  maintain  that  the  mode  of  baptism  is  not  es- 
sential :  and  for  this  opinion  they  go,  not  to  the  decrees 
of  the  Pope,  nor  to  the  traditions  of  the  Papal  Church, 
as  we  have  been  slanderously  reported,  but  to  the 
Word  of  God.  Upon  the  most  careful  examination,  and 
in  making  the  best  and  most  scrupulous  application  of  the 


8  LAW    OF   BAPTISM. 

acknowledged  rules  of  interpretation  that  we  are  able, 
we  find  that  sprinkling  and  pouring  are  Scriptural  modes 
of  baptism.  Many  think  further  (and  I  profess  myself 
of  this  number),  that  these  are  the  onli/  modes  for  which 
we  have  any  clear  Scriptural  example,  or  even  clear 
Scriptural  authority,  if  anything  is  to  depend  upon  the 
mode.  But  we  think  nothing  depends  on  the  mode  : — 
that  the  command  to  Baptize  refers  to  the  thing  donCy 
rather  than  to  the  mode  of  doing  it :  viz.,  to  a  ritual  puri- 
fying by  some  manner  of  application  of  water  :  and  in 
which  the  mode  of  the  application  is  a  matter  of  entire 
indifference  ;  provided  it  be  done  decently  and  reverently, 
as  becomes  an  ordinance  of  God.  Hence,  we  regard 
immersion  as  valid  baptism  ;  and  never  refuse  to  admi- 
nister it  in  that  mode,  when  the  candidate  for  baptism 
cannot  be  satisfied  in  conscience  with  any  other. 

But  while  we  believe  these  things,  another  large 
denomination  of  Christians  deem  it  essential  to  baptism, 
that  the  whole  body  be  immersed :  and  so  essential,  that 
they  refuse  to  be  united  in  church  membership,  or  to 
partake,  even  occasionally,  of  the  Lord's  supper  in  com- 
pany with  others  who  hold  the  same  Gospel  truth  and 
order  ;  who  are  of  acknowledged  piety  ;  who,  according 
to  their  best  understanding,  and  with  the  full  conviction 
of  their  conscience,  have  been  baptized  ;  who  dificr  from 
themselves  only  in  not  having  been  wholly  under  water 
in  the  manner  of  their  baptism  ;  and  who,  were  they  to 
be  convinced  that  immersion  is  essential  to  baptism, 
would  as  soon  throw  their  bodies  into  the  fire  as  re- 
fuse to  be  immersed.  Their  fault  is  not  loilful  disobedi- 
ence: it  is  not  neglect ;  it  is  not  any  want  oi^  candor  or 
diligence  in'  examining  the  quegtion  concerning  the 
mode  of  baptism  ;  it  is  solely  this  :  instead  of  subjecting 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  \) 

their  judgment  and  conscience,  in  this  matter,  to  the  au 
thorily  of  their  Baptist  brethren,  they  have  presumed  to 
follow  their  ott7i  judgment  and  their  own  conscience,  as 
enlightened  by  a  careful  study  of  the  word  of  God. 

"  To  the  law  and  to  the  testimony."  Thatw^ord  shall 
judge  us  in  the  last  day,  and  by  that  will  w^ebe  determined 
now. 

In  our  investigation  of  the  mode  of  Baptism,  I  shall 
first  remark  concerning  the  principles  of  interpretation  to 
be  applied  or  admitted  in  determining  this  question. 

Then,  I  shall,  upon  the  basis  of  these  principles,  insti- 
tute three  inquiries  : 

1.  Vi'liat  ii'ould  the  immediate  disciples  of  Christ  under- 
stand from  the  simple  face  of  the  command^  '-'•  Baptize  V^ 

2.  Is  there  satisfactory  evidence,  that  they  always 
administered  the  ordinance  of  baptism  by  immersion  1 

3.  On  the  supposition  that  our  Lord  teas  baptized  in  a 
given  mode,  and  that  the  apostles  always  practised  that 
mode  ; — is  there  evidence  that  they  considered  that  one  mode 
.essential? 

The  preliminary  remarks  concerning  the  principles  of 
interpretation,  together  wilh  an  application  of  those 
principles  to  the  method  of  arguing  employed  by  our 
Baptist  brethren,  will  occupy  this  first  discourse.  I 
shall  be  obliged  to  take  up  subjects  foreign  from  the 
common  field  of  sermonizing  ;  and  such  as  are  rather 
scholastic,  and  not  very  interesting  to  a  mixed  assembly. 
I  shall  be  obliged  to  tax  your  patience  somewhat :  but  I 
will  make  the  matter  as  clear  and  as  interesting  as  I  can; 
and  discuss  no  topic  which  you  will  not  perceive  to  have 
a  weighty  bearing  upon  the  argument  before  we  get 
through. 

1* 


10  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

There  cannot  be  much  Gospel  in  such  a  discussion  as 
this  ;  as  the  whole  genius  of  the  Gospel  is  averse  to  dis- 
putations about  the  mere  modes  of  rites  and  ordinances. 
I  will  try,  however,  to  discuss  the  matter  in  the  spirit  of 
the  Gospel ;  and  will  endeavor  to  bring  in  as  much  of 
the  Gospel  of  salvation  as  a  disputation  about  the  mere 
ceremony  of  an  ordinance  will  admit.     I  proceed 

1.    TO    THE    PRINCIPLES    OF     INTERPRETATION    TO    BE    AP- 
PLIED   OR    ADMITTED    IN    DETERMINING    THIS    CASE. 

Sir  William  Blackstone,  in  his  "  Commentaries  on  the 
Laws  of  England,"  cites  the  following  example  for  the 
purpose  of  illustrating  one  of  the  principles  on  which  laws 
are  to  be  interpreted.* 

^'  A  lav/  of  Edward  III.  forbids  all  ecclesiastical  per- 
sons to  purchase  p-oz'/i-zows  at  Rome."  Now  the  word 
"joroDzsiows"  commonly  means  "  mc^wa/s  ;"  ''•  things  to 
eat  ;"  and  at  first  sight  the  law  of  Edward  III.  seems  to 
forbid  the  purchasing  oi  victuals  ; — meat, — grain, — eata- 
bles,— at  Rome. 

Suppose  now,  on  a  debate  concerning  the  import  of 
this  law,  one  should  say,  "  The  law  is  express  :  it  says 
' provisions j"*  and  provisions  are  '  victuah."*  "  Granted: 
such  is  the  common  acceptation  of  the  word.  Suppose 
he  should  urge  it ;  and  bring  a  hundred  dictionaries,  in 
all  of  which  the  first  and  most  common  meanino-  of  the 

o 

word  ''- provisions'^'^  should  be  ^^  victuals ^  Suppose, 
when  I  question  whether  the  law  meant  victuals^  and 
endeavor  to  give  my  reasons,  he  should  lift  up  his  hand 
toward  the  sun,  and  cry,  "  It  is'as  plain  as  the  sun  in  the 
heavens,  and  the  man  who  does  not  see  it  is  not  worth  argu- 
*  Blackstone,  Introduction,  ^  2,  3. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  11 

ing  with  :  all  the  dictionaries  say  so  :  it  has  been  conceded 
a  thousand  times  that  'provisions^  means  '  victuals.'*  ^^ 
Suppose  he  should  go  further  :  suppose  he  should  hunt 
up  the  word  "  provisions'^  as  used  in  all  the  classic  Eng- 
lish authors  from  the  days  of  Chaucer  and  Spenser,  and 
show  in  ten  thousand  instances  that  the  word  provisions 
means  victuals:  and  that,  even  in  its  figurative  uses,  it 
still  refers  to  something  to  support  and  nourish  :  e.  g. 
as  when  Mrs.  Isabella  Graham  selected  a  multitude  of 
texts  of  Scripture  calculated  to  give  her  comfort  in  death, 
she  called  them  "  Proumo/is  for  passing  over  Jordan." 
"  Here,"  says  the  stickler  for  victuals^  "  here  I  take  my 
stand.  If  I  have  not  settled  the  meaning  of  the  word 
^ provisions j"*  nothing  can  be  settled.'*''  And  so  he  stretches 
the  law  to  his  dictionaries  and  classics.  Provision  shall 
mean  victuals  ;  and  all  further  reasoning  is  barred  away 
from  any  concern  in  settling  the  question. 

You  have  here,  if  I  mistake  not,  and  as  I  think  I  shall 
be  able  to  show,  the  substance  of  the  Baptist  principles 
of  arguing  concerning  the  question  at  issue. 

But  no,  says  Blackstone  ;  see  first  for  what  reason  the 
law  was  made.  Search  out  the  meaning  of  the  word 
'-'■  provisions'*''  as  used  in  the  "  Canon  law'*''  of  those  days. 

"  The  law,"  says  Blackstone,  "  might  seem  to  prohibit 
the  buying  of  grain  and  other  victuals :  but  when  we 
consider  that  the  statute  was  made  to  repress  the  usurpa- 
tions of  the  Papal  See,  and  that  the  nominations  to  benefices 
by  the  Pope  were  called  provisions^  we  shall  see  that  the 
restraint  is  intended  to  be  laid  on  such  provisions  only."* 

*  Mr.  Carson  says,  p.  396,  that  this  "is  just  an  example  that 
he  would  select  to  illustrate  his  views  of  the  laws  of  language. 
The  English  language  gives  nominations  to  ecclesiastical  benefices  by  the 


12  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  word  ^^  provisions''^  in  this  law  of  Edward  III.  does 
not  mean  grain  or  victuals,  or  stores  of  any  kind  :  but 
"  7wminatwns  to  ecclesiastical  benefices  by  the  Pope ;" 
and  for  this  law,  people  may  purchase  as  much  meat  and 

Pope,  as  one  of  the  meanings  of  the  word  provisions ;  and  when  used 
with  reference  to  ecclesiastical  things,  it  is  self-evidently 
clear  that  this,  and  not  vichtals,  is  its  meaning."  In  this  case,  after  all 
other  writers  and  lexicons  have  made  the  word  provisions  mean  vic- 
tuals, he  will  allow  writers  on  ecclesiastical  things  to  show 
for  themselves,  that  they  use  the  word  in  a  sense  entirely  different 
and  peculiar.  But  he  will  not  allow  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and 
Paul  the  same  privilege,  in  explaining  their  own  meaning  of  the 
word  baptize.  O  no  :  they  must  mean,  they  shall  mean,  what  the 
heathen  Greeks  mean !  That  point  is  fixed  !  As  Mr.  Carson 
was  so  kind  as  to  "  bestow"  upon  me  divers  "  Canons,"  I  would 
humbly  submit  to  the  common  sense  of  my  Baptist  brethren  the 
following  inquiries  :  1.  Whether  it  be  not  a  sound  canon  of 
interpretation,  that  sacred  writers  are  to  be   allowed   to 

EXPLAIN   their  OWN   MEANING,  .TUST  AS  HEATHEN    GreEKS  ARE 

allowed  TO  EXPLAIN  THEIRS  1  2.  Whether  it  is  not  a  sound 
canon,  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  a  competent  and  credible 

WITNESS,  AS  to   THE   SENSE    IN   WHICH    THE    HoLY   GlIOST  USES 

the  word  baptize'?  3.  That  where  the  New  Testament 
witness  differs  from  the  heathen  Greeks,  he  is  to  be  heard 
before  any  heathen,  and  all  the   heathen   that  ever 

EXISTED  ? 

Mr.  Carson  has  built  his  whole  work  upon  a  practical  denial  of 
these  self-evident  canons.  He  has  taken  precisely  the  ground  that 
one  would  have  taken  who,  having  pushed  his  inquiries  concern- 
ing the  word  provisions  up  to  the  very  times  of  the  writers  on 
ecclesiastical  affairs,  should  there  stop,  and  say,  "  It  is  fixed ;  if  I 
have  not  settled  the  meaning  of  the  word  provisions,  nothing  can 
be  settled  ;  these  ecclesiastical  writers  must  mean,  and  shall 
mean,  nothing  but  victuals.^''  And  having  thus  set  at  nought  the 
plainest  principles  of  interpretation,  Mr.  Carson  says,  "  Let  Mr. 
H.  acquaint  himself  with  the  philosophy  of  evidence  before  he 
ventures  to  criticise  my  reasoning'.'* 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  13 

grain  and  other  victuals  at  Rome  as  tney  please.  The 
decision  of  Blackstone  carries  all  common  sense  with  it. 
Away  go  the  hundred  dictionaries  and  the  ten  thousand 
quotations  from  the  classics.  No  matter  how  many 
times  it  might  have  been  "  conceded"  that  the  word  pro- 
visions commonly  means  something  to  eat : — Blackstone 
himself  makes  the  same  concession,  and  still  maintains 
his  interpretation  of  the  law. 

In  the  same  manner,  if  it  should  be  proved  indubitably, 
that  the  word  Baptizo  (Sanxito))  in  classic  Greek  means 
on\y  io  immerse  ; — to  immerse  the  subject  wholly;  this 
would  not  settle  the  question  that  the  command  to  Baptize 
in  the  New  Testament  means  indispensably  to  immerse. 

The  classic  Greek  writers  lived  from  three  hundred  to 
eight  hundred  j^ears  before  Christ.  They  lived  in  another 
country.  They  were  familiar  with  another  set  of  ideas, 
— especially  on  religious  matters.  The  Greek  language 
in  their  hands  was  adapted  to  the  religious  ideas  of 
heathen  :  in  the  hands  of  Jews  it  was  adapted  to  the 
religious  ideas  of  those  who  were  acquainted  with  the 
true  God. 

More  particularly : — The  Greek  was  not  introduced 
into  Judea  till  after  the  conquest  of  that  country  by 
Alexander,  300  years  before  Christ.  It  prevailed  very 
gradually ;  its  genius  received  a  mould  from  the  genius 
of  the  Hebrew  ;  Greek  words  were  applied  to  Jewish 
ideas  ;  and  to  ideas  which  had  never  been  compounded 
into  an  existence  in  the  land  of  classic  Greek : — as  in 
the  words  translated  Holy,  Holiness,  Sin,  Faith,  Repent- 
ance, Justification,  Salvation.  The  Hebrew  continued 
to  be  spoken  with  the  Greek :  and  it  is  even  contended 
with  no  small  force  of  argument  that  Matthew  wrote  his 


14  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Gospel  in  Hebrew  ;  as  Paul  (Acts  xxi.  40)  stood  on 
the  stairs  of  the  castle,  and  spake  unto  the  people  of 
Jerusalem  "  in  the  Hebrew  tongue.'''' 

The  pure  Greek  of  the  old  Grecians  is  called  Classic 
Greek.  The  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  has  been 
called  the  "  Greek  of  the  Synagogue.^''  And  every  man, 
who  is  both  a  classical  and  a  Biblical  student,  knows  full 
well  that  a  good  lexicon  (or  dictionary)  of  the  Greek  of 
the  synagogue  must  be  a  peculiar  lexicon  of  the  New 
Testament  Greek.  Such  we  have  :  elaborate  and  ex- 
cellent lexicons.  And  in  cases  of  doubt  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  a  word,  the  New^  Testament  use,  where  it  can  be 
shown  to  be  peculiar,  determines  the  meaning  in  defiance 
of  all  the  classic  Greek  writers  and  lexicons  in  exist- 
ence. 

Let  me  give  an  illustration  or  two  of  the  effect  of 
arguing  the  New  Testament  meaning  from  the  original 
and  from  the  classic  use  of  a  word. 

Some  years  since,  I  met  with  a  man,  who  was  liberally 
educated,  a  thorough  scholar,  an  able  lawyer,  and  pos- 
sessed of  splendid  natural  abilities,  but  sceptical  in  his 
views  of  religion. 

With  this  man  I  undertook  to  reason  of  the  necessity 
of  being  born  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Now,  the  word  in 
the  Greek  Testament  for  Ghost,  or  spirit,  is  Pneuma 
{jtvEv^a)  which  originally,  and  in  the  classic  Greek, 
most  commonly  meant  wind.  This  man  would  have 
me  argue  by  book.  He  turned  me  to  the  Greek  Testa- 
ment (John  iii.  5).,  '-^  See  here,"  says  he,  "  it  reads,  and 
you  know  it  reads,  '  Verily,  Verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  ex- 
cept a  man  be  born  of  water  and  of  wind,  he  cannot  en- 
ter into  the  kingdom  of  God.'     What  right,"  said  he, 


PRINCIPLES   OF  INTERPRETATION.  15 

"  have  you   to  chano-e  the  orio;inal  classic  meanino;  of 

•zoo  O 

'  Pneuma*  (jivavf.ia)^  '  wind,^  here,  any  more  than  you 
have  of  '  Hudatos'  (vdawg)  '  ivater  V  And  see,  further," 
said  he,  "  there  is  the  same  word  in  the  Sth  verse,-- 
letter  for  letter, — and  there  you  do  not  say,  the  '•  Spini 
bloweth  where  it  listeth ;'  you  say,  '  the  wind  bloweth 
where  it  hsteth.'  " 

He  was  right  in  the  original  and  ordinary  classic  use. 
of  the  word.  And  if  I  had  argued  on  the  principles  on 
which  (I  shall  show)  our  Baptist  brethren  have  argued, 
I  should  have  been  obliged  to  allow,  that  the  renewing 
by  the  "  Spirit  of  God,"  or  even  the  personal  existence 
of  such  a  Spirit,  is  not  taught  or  referred  to  in  this  pas- 
sage. 

With  all  due  respect  for  our  Baptist  brethren,  I  hum- 
bly conceive  that,  in  this  matter,  they  have  fallen  into  an 
egregious  error  in  their  attempted  corrections  of  our 
common  translation. 

To  the  Bibles  and  Testaments  issued  by  their  society, 
they  prefix  a  glossary,  containing,  among  others,  the  fol- 
lowing words,  thus  ; 

"  Meaning  of  the  words  used  in  this  translation.^^ 
Ayyelog,  Angel,  Messenger, 

BanTttot),  Baptize,  Immerse, 

Bami(T^og,         Baptism,  Immersion, 

Exy.l7]aiUj  Church,  Congregation," 

It  is  maintained  that  these  words,  and  some  others,  are 
improperly,  if  not  dishonestly,  left  imtran&lated*  and 
that  the   words  which  are  given  in  the  third  column  as 

*  ''•  The  mass  of  readers  do  not  understand  the  original,  and 
translators  of  the  Bible,  by  adopting,  not  translating,  have  hidden 
the  meaning  from  the  multitude."    Jewett  on  Baptism,  p.  31. 


16  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  meaning  ought  to  be  substituted  for  the  words  adopted 
in  our  translation.  Thus  :  where  we  read  "  C/im7cA,"* 
we  ought  to  read  "  CongregaHon,^^  where  we  read  "  An- 
geV  in  our  version,  we  ought  to  read  "  Messenger ;" 
where  we  read  "  Baptize^''''  we  ought  to  read  "  Immerse;'*'^ 
and  where  we  read  "  Baptlsm,^^  we  ought  to  read  "  /m- 
mersion.^^ 

Now  it  appears  to  me  that  this  is  falling  into  a  worse 
error  than  that  of  the  unbelieving  scholar  concerning  the 
word  Pneuma  or  Spirit.  Thus "  Angel"  is  a  word  of 
Greek  original  adopted  into  the  English  language,  and 
used  in  our  translation.^  Oar  Baptist  brethren  insist 
that  this  adoption  is  wrong  :  that  the  word  ought  to  be 
translated  by  the  word  "  Messenger.''^ 

Now  it  is  certainly  true  that,  in  the  classic  Greek, 
the  word  Angel  (^ayyelo;')  means  Messenger  ;  and  means 
nothing  like  the  idea  which  we  attribute  to  it :  viz.,  of  a 

*  The  word  "  ChurclC  begins  to  be  nearly  as  troublesome  as  the 
word  "  Baptized  While  the  word  "  Baptize'^  remains  in  the 
Bible,  it  is  difficult  to  persuade  people  that  it  means  exclu- 
sively "  to  immerse;''^  and  while  the  word  "  Church"  remains, 
people  will  somehow  follow  it  out  to  a  covenant  which  embraces 
infants. 

t  Nothing  is  more  common  than,  such  adoption  of  v^'ords  from 
the  Greek.  The  process  is  going  on  to  this  day  ;  particularly  our 
terms  of  science  and  of  art  are  almost  wholly  adopted  (and  com- 
pounded) from  the  Greek.  Strike  all  such  adopted  words  from 
our  language,  and  scarcely  could  two  people,  even  in  the  ordinary 
walks  of  life,  hold  a  conversation  for  a  single  hour. 

"  Et  r\ov2i  fidaque  nuper  habebunt  verba  iidem,  si 
Geaeco  foyite  eadant,  parce  detorta." 

"Licuit    SEJIPERQUE    LICEBIT 

Signatum  praesente  nota  procudere  nomen." 

Q.  Ho  RAT.    Ars  Poetica. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  17 

spiritual  being  of  an  order  superior  to  man  and  inferior 
to  God.  The  Greeks  even  had  another  word  to  signify 
such  a  spiritual  being,  "  i)emo7i"  [duii.mv')^  and  Angelas 
(uyyelo;)  meant  nothing  but  "  messenger.''^  But  mark 
how  the  classic  Greek  was  modified  when  adapted  to 
Jewish  ideas.  The  Jews  used  the  word  "  Demon'''' 
(^duifio)v^  to  express  only  an  evil  spirit  ;  a  fallen  angel : 
and  "  angeV  they  appropriated  to  the  ^oo^Z  spirits.  And 
to  -translate  the  word  in  all  cases  as  the  Baptist  Bible 
Societ}'  would  teach  us,  instead  of  adopting  it  into 
English,  untranslated,  would  make  the  most  arrant 
nonsense. 

For  example  :  take  Acts  xxiii.  S,  and  translate  it 
according  to  the  instructions  and  on  the  principles  of  the 
Baptist  Bible  Society. 

In  our  common  version  the  passage  reads  thus  :  ''For 
the  Sadducees  say,  there  is  no  resurrection^  neither  angel 
nor  spirit:  but  the  Pharisees  confess  both."  The  word 
resurrection  here  falls  under  the  same  rule,  if  you  take 
its  meaning  from  the  classic  Greek.  The  Greeks  had  no 
such  idea  as  ^hat  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body  :  and 
of  course  no  word  for  it,  but  their  uvamuaig  (anastasis) 
was  a  simple  "rising  up."*     In  our  translation  the  pas- 

=*  My  good  friend,  "Transmontanus,"  finds  fault  with  me  here. 
He  maintains  that  pneiana  sometimes  means  spirit  in  the  classic 
Greek.  Perhaps  he  did  not  observe  how  carefully  I  had  provided 
for  that,  by  saying  that  it  "  originally"  and  "  most  commonly" 
meant  wind.  It  is  rarely  that  it  means  otherwise.  Donnegan 
notices  that  it  is  sometimes  otherwise  used  "  by  later  writers.^' 

"  Transmontanus,"  also,  insists  that  anastasis  means  the  same 
in  the  sacred  as  in  the  classic  writers.  He  brings  no  proof.  His 
examples  refer  to  the  verb,  "  to  raise  up  again."  The  resurrection 
[anastasis)  of  the  T^ew  Testament  is  altogether  peculiar.     It  is 


18  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

sage  reads  thus  :  "  For  the  Sadducees  say  there  is  no  re- 
surrection^  neither  angel  nor  spirit;  but  the  Pharisees 
confess  both."  According  to  the  principles  on  which  our 
translation  is  branded  as  inadequate  and  unfaithful,  we 
must  read  it  thus  :  For  the   Sadducees  say  there  is  no 

used  absolutely ;  as  in  Matt.  xxii.  23,  *'  The  Sadducees  say  there  is 
no  resurrection,''^  and  Acts  xvii.  18,  "  He  seemeth  to  be  a  setter 
forth  of  strange  Gods ;  because  he  preached  unto  them  Jesus  and 
the  Resurrection^  The  Stoics  and  Epicureans  would  have  been 
quite  as  likely  to  think  the  Resurrection  (anastasis)  a  God  (when 
used  absolutely  and  alone,  as  it  is  in  the  New  Testament),  as  to 
imagine  that  it  was  intended  to  signif}'^  a  raising  of  the  dead,  Don- 
negan  notices  the  peculiar  meaning  of  this  word  in  "  Ecclesiastical 
u-ritcrs.'''' 

"  Transmontanus"  insists,  also,  that  the  New  Testament 
Angelas  (angel)  means  a  simple  messenger,  as  it  does  in  the  classic 
Greek ;  and  that  it  does  not  refer  to  a  class  of  Heavenly  creatures, 
like  our  English  word  angel.  According  to  him  and  to  the 
Baptist  Bible  Society,  we  must  expunge  the  word  angel  from  our 
Bibles,  and,  where  it  occurs,  read  thus  : — John  v.  4,  must  be 
read,  "  For  a  messenger  went  down  at  a  certain  season  into  the 
pool,  and  troubled  the  water."  In  Acts  xi.  13,  we  must  read, 
*'  And  showed  us  how  he  had  seen  a  messenger  in  his  house :" 
Acts  xii.  15/"  Then  said  they,  it  is  his"  (Peter's)  ^'' messenger  :^'' 
Malt.  iv.  11,  "  Then  the  devil  leaveth  him,  and  behold  messengers 
came  and  ministered  to  him:"  Matt,  xviii.  10,  "  TYveix  messengers 
do  always  behold  the  face  of  my  Father  in  Heaven  :"  1  Cor.  vi. 
3,  "Know  ye  not,  that  we  shall  judge  messengers ?^^  Heb.  i.  4, 
"  Being  made  so  much  better  than  the  messengers :"  Heb.  ii,  16, 
*'  He  took  not  on  him  the  nature  of  messengers  :"  and  Heb.  xiii.  2, 
"  For  some  have  entertained  messengers  unawares."  I  confess 
that  there  is  quite  as  good  reason  for  making  Angel  read  messen- 
ger, as  there  is  for  making  Baptize  read  immerse. 

The  word  Church,  too,  must  express  no  more  than  the  heathen 
idea  of  a  town-meeting,  or  assembly.  But  clearly  the  New  Tes- 
tament ecclesia  does  mean  something  which  it  never  could  mean 
in  classic  Greek.     Thus  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  "  And  God  hath  set 


RINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  19 

rising  up,  neither  messenger  nor  wind."  But  did  they 
ever  say  so  1  Did  they  ever  deny  the  existence  of  such  a 
thing  as  a  messenger  or  of  such  a  thing  as  wind  ? 

The  same  reason  existed  for  converting  the  Greek 
Baptizo  into  the  English  Baptize^  as  for  converting  An- 
gelas into  Angel.  There  was  no  word  in  English  which 
v/ould  fill  up  the  idea.  If  baptism  was  to  be  performed 
by  sprinkling,  it  w^ould  not  do  to  translate  Baptizo  by  the 
word  sprinkle,  because  all  sprinkling  is  not  baptism.  If 
baptism  were  exclusively  by  immersion,  still  the  word 
immerse  would  not  express  the  whole  or  the  essential  idea : 
and  all  immersion  is  not  baptism.  The  word  Baptize  in 
the  New  Testament  refers  less  to  the  manner  of  the 
application  of  water,  than  to  the  design  and  import  of  the 
application  :  it  is  a  sacred  application  :  a  ritual  applica- 
tion :  denoting  a  ritual  purifying,  and  referring  to  an  im- 
portant and  essential  truth  for  its  signification.  The  New 
Testament  us.e  of  the  word  involved  a  reference  to  these 
ideas,*  just  as  the  w^ord  Baptize  does  now  :  and  neither 
of  the  words,  sprinkle,  pour,  immerse,  has  the  essential 
quality  of  referring  to  these  ideas.  Thus  :  if  I  go  and 
throw  myself  off  from  one  of  the  wharves  at  high  tide, 

some  in  the  Church,  first  Apostles,"  &c. ;  it  is  not  a  simple  asscm- 
hly^  or  congregation,  that  is  intended  ;  so,  Eph.  i.  22,  "  And  gave 
him  to  be  head  over  all  things  to  the  Churchj"  it  is  no  congrega- 
tion that  is  intended,  but  the  universal  polity  of  Christ's  people 
in  all  lands,  in  all  time,  on  earth  and  in  Heaven.  I  suppose  we 
should  not  have  had  either  Church  or  ^ngel  proscribed  from  the 
Bible,  had  it  not  been  essential  to  find  some  company  for  the  pool 
banished  word  Baptize. 

*  See  an  able  article  in  the  American  Biblical  Repository  from 
the  pen  of  President  Edward  Beecher:  where  this  point  is  most 
thoroughly  made  out.     American  Biblical  Repository,  Jan.,  1S40 


20 


LAAV    OF    BAPTISM. 


I  am  immersed  beyond  question  :  but  am  I  baptized  ? 
Our  young  men  and  boys  immerse  themselves  many  times 
every  summer,  but  are  they  baptized  1  I  think  all  would 
deem  it  improper  to  say  so.  The  fundamental  idea  of 
baptism  is  wanting.  * 

It  would  therefore  be  an  inadequate  and  improper 
translation  to  substitute  the  word  immerse  for  the  word 
baptize^  in  every  place  in  the  New  Testament :  as  much 
as  it  would  to  make  that  substitution  which  should  make 
the  Sadducees  deny  the  existence  of  such  a  thing  as  a 
"  messenger,"  or  "  wind."  The  translators  of  our  Bible, 
as  intelligent  and  honest  men,  could  not  translate  '^Bap- 
tizo^''  by  "  Immerse''^  on  this  ground  alone  :  and  I  shall 
show  that  they  could  not  on  another :  as  in  the  New 
Testament  the  word  denotes  often  an  application  of 
water  (or  of  something  else),  by  sprinkling  or  by  pouring. 
It  is  used  often  where  the  idea  of  immersion  is  entirely 
excluded. 

Indeed  if  any  fault  is  to  be  found  with  tha  word  Bap- 
tize,  as  though  it  were  a  Greek  word  instead  of  a  trans- 
lation, precisely  the  same  objection  applies  to  the  w^ords 
^^  Immerse'''^  and  ^^  Immersion. '^^  These  are  as  purely 
Latin,  as  "  Baptize"  is  Greek :  and  we  might  with  the 
same  propriety  turn  round  and  say.  Why  do  you  not 
translate  those  Latin  words  ?  Do  you  mean  to  ^'  keep 
people  in  ignorance,"  and  "promote  a  union  of  Church 
and  State,"  by  talking  to  the  people,  like  the  Pope,  in 
Latin? 

To  my  mind,  the  noise  that  is  made  about  the  non- 
translation  of  the  word  Baptize,  is  utterly  without  founda- 
tion. To  adopt  the  principles  on  which  the  noise  is 
made,  and  carry,  them  out,  would  lead  to  gross  absurdity. 


PRINCIPLEa  OF  INTERPRETATION.  21 

To  say  that  people  would  never  have  made  any  question 
about  the  mode  of  baptism  if  the  word  had  only  been 
translated  immerse^  is  only  to  say  that  if  the  word  had 
been  improperly  translated,  the  people  would  have  been 
misled.  There  is  no  reason  in  the  world,  that  I  know  of, 
for  thinking  that  our  translators  were  either  ignorant  or 
dishonest  in  this  matter.  Had  they  not  turned  Baplizo 
into  an  English  word,  they  must  have  expressed  it  by  a 
circumlocution  that  would  have  amounted  to  a  gloss, 
rather  than  a  translation,  or  they  must  have  coined  a  new 
word  for  the  purpose. 

Besides,  while  so  large  a  part  of  the  learned  world 
fully  believe  that  Baptism  in  the  New  Testament  often 
signified  an  application  of  water  which  was  performed 
by  sprinkling  or  by  pouring  ;  how  could  we  have  a  Bible 
in  which  all  denominations  may  agree,  if  we  insist  upon 
translating  the  word  Baptize  either  by  ''  hmnerse,''^  by 
"  jjour,''^  or  by  "  sprinkle  ?"  Were  there  no  other  reason, 
this  would  be  sufficient  for  aJoptino;  the  original  word, 
instead  of  translating  it  by  either. 

Arid  yet,  our  Baptist  brethren  have  broken  off  from 
the  national  Bible  Society,  for  the  very  reason  that  it 
will  not  be  thus  instrumental  in  putting  forth  to  the 
world  a  sectarian  Bible  !  They  have  a  denominational 
Bible  Society,  entitled  the  "  American  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society^''''  which  issues  its  foreign  translations  on  the 
principle  of  substituting  the  word  immerse  for  baptize  : 
and  by  their  notes  at  the  beginning  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment they  have,  in  effect,  done  the  same  for  the  English 
translation  :  with  how  little  reason,  I  have  shown. 

I  say  not  this  out  of  disrespect  or  fault-finding.  The 
right  of  conscience  and  of  private  judgment  is  ti^^'irs. 


22  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Most  freely,  with  no  disturbance  or  complaint  on  our 
part,  let  them  enjoy  it.  I  only  aim  to  point  out,  what 
I  consider  the  error  of  the  principle.  Whether  I  have 
succeeded,  you  will  judge.  We  impeach  not  their  in- 
egrity  in  the  least.  Would  that  our  integrity  in  this 
matter,  and  our  rights  of  conscience  and  of  private 
judgment,  might  be  equally  respected.  But  it  is  with  no 
less  grief  than  astonishment,  that  I  read  in  the  papers  the 
last  month,  the  following  "  Resolution''^  of  the  "  American 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society"  at  their  anniversary  on  the 
28th  of  April  of  the  present  year.* 

"  Resolved^  that  by  the  fact^  that  the  nations  of  the  earth 
must  now  look  to  the  Baptist  denomination  alone  for 
FAITHFUL  TRANSLATIONS  OF  THE  WORD  OF  GoD,  a  re- 
sponsibility is  imposed  upon  them,  demanding  for  its  full 
discharge,  an  unwonted  degree  of  union,  of  devotion, 
and  of  strenuous  and  persevering  effort  throughout  the 
entire  body."      *  * 

That  our  Baptist  brethren  mean  to  be  faithful  in  trans- 
lating the  word  of  God,  we  doubt  not.  But  are  we  to 
believe  that  all  the  missionaries  of  Protestant  Christendom 
throughout  the  world,  save  "  the  Baptist  denomination 
alone,"  have  given  to  the  poor  heathen  unfaithful  trans- 
lations of  the  word  of  God  ?  Can  no  ^^  faithful  transla- 
tion'''' come  from  any  denomination  on  earth  save  one  ?'\ 

*  It  was  moved  by  Prof.  Eaton,  of  Hamilton  Institute,  and 
seconded  by  Rev.  Mr.  Malcom. 

t  In  the  report  of  the  Am.  and  For.  Bible  Society,  for  1840 
(p.  39),  the  translations  made  by  all  other  denominations  are 
stigmatized  as  "  Versions  in  which  the  real  meanings  of . . .  words, 
are  purposely  keptout  of  sight  :"  .  .  .  so  that  "  Baptists  cannot 
circulate/aiYA/ifZ  versions  .  . .  unless  they  print  them  at  their  own 
expense."     They  ask  (p.  40),  "  Shall  we  look  on  unconcernedly 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  23 

Are  ''  the  nations  of  the  earth,"  according  to  the  tenor 
of  this  resolution,  dependent  on  "  the  Baptist  denomina- 
tion alone''^  for  this  ? 

Having  remarked  so  far  upon  the  principles  of  inter- 
pretation, I  come  now  to  make  an  application  of  those 
principles  to  the  mode  of  arguing  adopted  by  our  Baptist 
brethren. 

while  unfaithful  versions  (as  we  hold  them)  are  circulated."  They 
assert  (p.  45),  "  It  is  known  that  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society,  and  the  American  Bible  Society,  have  virtually  combined 
-to  OBSCURE  at  least  a  part  of  Divine  Revelation:" — and  that 
"  these  societies  .  .  .  continue  to  circulate  versions  of  the  Bible, 
vmfaithful.,  at  least  so  far  as  the  subject  of  baptism  is  concerned  ; 
and  that  they  are  by  this  means  propagating  their  peculiar  senti- 
ments under  the  auspices,  and  at  the  expense  of  the  millions  of  all 
denominations  who  contribute  to  their  funds  ;  and  who  are  thus 
mad-e  the  unconscious  instruments  of  diffusing  the  opinions  of  a 
party  ^  instead  of  the  uncorrupted  icord  of  Jehovah.''^ 

This  last  paragraph  is  not  less  remarkable  for  its  deliberate 
charge  of  dishonesty  upon  all  other  denominations  than  for  its 
singular  admission  of  that,  which  if  it  be  a  fact, — it  seems  to  me, — 
is  fatal  to  the  immersion  scheme.  The  allegation  is,  that  to 
transfer  baptizo  into  baptize,  instead  of  rendering  it  by  the  word 
Lnmersc,  is  to  "  propagate  the  peculiar  sentiments^^  of  Pa?do-baptists. 
That  is,  the  word  baptizo  is  so  used  in  the  New  Testament,  as 
almost  without  fail  to  lead  those  who  learn  its  meaning  from  the 
Bible  alone  to  conclude  that  it  docs  not,  in  the  Bible,  mean  immer- 
sion :  and  if  you  leave  people  to  learn  its  meaning  from  the  con- 
text for  themselves,  you  ^^ propagate  the  pecidiar  sentiments'^  of 
Paedo-baptists  among  them  !  Nay,  the  same  effect  will  be  pro- 
duced when  such  a  Bible  is  given  by  Baptist  hands,  and  accom- 
panied by  Baptist  instructions !  If  Baptists  circulate  such  a  version, 
they  "  are  thus  made  the  unconscious  instruments  of  diffusing  the 
opinions^'  of  the  ^^  party^^ — of  Pasdo-baptists  ! 

I  beUeve  it.  It  is  even  so.  But  the  conclusion  is  (and  the 
objection  of  our  Baptist  brethren  unwittingly  adopts  this  veiy 


24 


LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 


It  was  first  attempted  to  prove  that  Baptize  means 
exclusively  to  immerse,  from  the  etymology  of  the  word. 
Baptize  is  truly  a  derivative  from  Bapto :  and  the 
primitive  meaning  of  Bapto  is  to  "  dip,"  or  to  "  immerse." 
It  was  contended  that  it  always  means  to  immerse.  This 
was  long  urged  and  most  strenuously  insisted  on  as  the 
foundation  of  the  Baptist  argument— that  Bapto  means 
nothing  but  to  dip  or  immerse. 

But  upon  examination  it  was  found,  that  the  meaning 
of  Bapto  had  undergone  important  changes  ;  that  it  often 
meant  only  to  color,  from  an  allusion  simply  to  the  known 
EFFECT  of  di  pping,  and  not  to  the  act  of  dipping  :  and  so 
it  is  often  used,  in  instances  where  dipping  is  wholly  out 
of  the  question.  Thus  Hippocrates  says  of  a  certain 
liquid,  that  when  it  drops  upon  the  garments,  they  are 
*'  Bapto''d  ;"  or  stained.  They  are  Bapto''d,  by  dropping 
the  liquid  upon  them.* 

So  Homer,  speaking  of  a  battle  of  frogs  and  mice  on 
the  borders  of  the  lake  says  (eSanieio  uipari  liuvrj)- — 
*•  The  lake  was  Bap!o''d  with  blood."  Says  President 
Edward  Beecher,T  "  On  this  there  v/as  once  a  battle 
royal  to  prove  that  it  could  be  proper  to  speak  of  dip- 
ping a  lake  into  the  blood  of  a  mouse:  and  all  the 
powers  of  rhetoric  were  put  in  requisition  to  justify  the 

conclusion  as  its  basis),  that  the  word  bapfizo,  as  it  is  used  in  the 
New  Testament,  does  not  mean  immerse  ;  and  will  not  be  so  un- 
derstood by  those  who  judge  of  its  meaning  by  its  wse  in  the  sacred 
writings.  But  to  insinuate  that  Pa^do-baptists  mean  to  "corrupt 
the  word  of  Jehovah,"  or  "  to  diffuse  the  opinions  of  a  p'rly' 
instead  of  the  "  uncorrupted"  word  of  God,  by  so  transferring  the 
word,  is,  methinks,  too  gross  a  calumny  to  gain  credit. 
*    Carson,  p  60.  t  Am.  Bib.  Repos.,  1840,  p.  50. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  25 

usage."*  Indeed,  on  the  ground  then  taken  by  Dr.  Gale 
and  by  others,  it  was  necessary  to  fight  for  this  ;  for  if  they 
could  not  make  it  out,  their  foundation  was  gone.  But 
since  Carson  showed  the  absurdity  of  the  ground,  it  has 
been  generally  abandoned.  And  yet  while  the  ground  is 
given  up,  the  tracts  based  on  this  ground  are  still  in  cir- 
culation, and  do  their  ivork  in  making  proselytes,  on  the 
strength  of  an  argument  which  well  informed  Baptists 
have  in  general  given  up  as  thoroughly  exploded. 
Such  a  change  in  the  meaning  of  a  word  is  a  very  com- 
mon occurrence,  and  it  is  conceded  on  all  hands  that  the 
derivation  of  a  word  is  no  certain  index  to  its  mean- 
ing. 

Thus  the  word  "  Tint^^^  comes  from  a  Latin  word 
(Tingo)  which  originally  meant  to  dip  :  then  it  meant  to 
color  or  ''  tingCj^^  and  now  we  speak  of  the  "  tints'^  of  the 
clouds  or  of  the  flowers,  without  ever  thinking  that  the 
flowers  or  the  clouds  have  been  dipped  to  give  them 
their  coloring.  So  the  word  "  Spirit'"*  comes  untrans- 
lated from  the  Latin  "  SpirituSj^^  of  which  the  original 
meaning  was  "  a  breath.'*^  But  what  mortal  will  now 
contend  that  a  spirit  is  nothing  but  breath?  And  yet 
there  is  the  same  reason  for  complaining  that  the  word 
spirit  is  an  untranslated  Latin  word,  that  there  is  for 
complaining  that  Baptize  is  an  untranslated  Greek  word  : 
and  the  reason  from  etymology  for  making  spirit  mean 
breath,  is  just  as  strong  as  for  making  Baptize  mean  im- 
merse from   its   derivation   from   Bapto.      So  the  words 

=*  Carson  says,  "  What  a  monstrous  paradox  in  rhetoric  is  the 
figuring  of  the  dipping  of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a  mouse!  Yet 
Dr.  Gale  supposes  the  lake  was  dipped  by  hyperbole.  The 
literal  sense,  he  says,  is,  the  lake  was  dipped  in  blood!  Never  was 
there  such  a  figure."  — P.  67. 
2 


26  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

"  bind^^  and  "  bonds''''  originally  meant  to  tie  up  or  mana- 
cle with  cords  or  chains.  But  who  thinks  now  of  put- 
ting cords  or  fetters  on  a  man  when  he  is  "  bound^^  to 
keep  the  peace  or  to  appear  in  court :  or  when  he  is  put 
under  '■'■bonds''^  to  fulfil  the  condition  of  a  bargain  or 
agreement  1 

The  mode  of  making  our  immersion  from  the  deriva- 
tion of  Baptizo  having  been  overthrown,  and  its  very  ele- 
ments scattered  to  the  wind,  the  learned  Carson  has  taken 
another  ground  ;  and  this  is  the  one  now  universally  re- 
lied on.  I  refer  to  Carson,  because  his  research  has  made 
this  field  his  own  on  the  Baptist  side  of  the  question  ;  be- 
cause he  is  undoubtedly  a  very  learned  and  able  man,* 
the  chief  indeed  on  the  Baptist  side  in  this  part  of  the 
field  of  controversy  :  because  their  writerst  are  fond  of 
referring  to  his  arguments  as  something  which  can  never 
be  overthrown  :  and  because,  indeed,  all  the  more  recent 
works,  to  which  I  have  had  access,  are  little  less  than 
Carson  over  again.  For  these  reasons  1  shall  follow  his 
argument ;  fully  confident  that  if  it  does  not  stand  in  him 
it  will  never  stand  in  the  strength  of  any  man. 

Mr.  Carson  has,  with  immense  labor,  hunted  over  the 
Greek  classics,  and  found,  as  he  thinks,  that  the  word 
Baptizo  always  means,  in  classic  Greek,  to  dip  or  iln- 
merse.  That  this  is  its  common  meaning  in  classic  Greek 
is  certain  :  though  I  think  he  has  failed  to  make  it  out 
to  be  its  exclusive  meaning. 

Having  settled  its  classic  meaning,  he  then  attempts 

*  "  Mr.  Carson,  inferior  in  learning  and  research  to  none  of  the 
Baptists."     [Edward  Beecber,  Am.  Bib,  Repos.,  1840,  p.  51.] 

t  See  tbe  preface  to  Jewett  on  Baptism,  wbere  he  says  (p.  4), 
"  The  spirit  exhibited  in  the  treatise  of  Carson  is  not  to  be  com- 
mended ;  his  reasoning,  however,  is  unanswerable.^* 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  27 

to  make  the  New  Testament  meaning  in  every  instance 
conform  to  it.  Here  lies  the  tug.  He  cannot  accom- 
plish this,  unless  we  will  allow  him  to  take  the  thing  to 
be  proved,  for  granted.  The  New  Testament  use  is — 
as  I  think  I  shall  show — most  clearly  and  indefeasihly 
against  him. 

Here  lies  his  error  :  and  it  is  fundamental.  He  relies 
on  the  classic  Greek  to  determine  the  New  Testament 
Greek :  while  the  facts  in  the  case  are  as  much  at  war 
with  his  conclusions,  as  the  facts  in  another  case  would 
be  with  the  conclusions  which  should  interpret  "p'oui- 
sions^^  in  the  law  of  Edward  HI.  to  mean  victuals :  or 
with  the  reasonings  which  would  make  our  Lord  say, 
that  men  must  be  born  of  "  water  and  of  wind;"  or  with 
those  which  would  make  the  Sadducees  deny  that  there 
is  any  "  messenger'*'*  or  ''  wind.'''' 

Here  is  a  point  to  be  settled  :  What  do  Matthew,  and 
Mark,  and  Luke,  and  John,  and  Paul  mean  by  Baptize? 
To  settle  this  point  Homer,  and  Pindar,  and  Xenophon 
are  brought  up  to  testify  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word 
in  their  country  and  in  their  day.  Does  this  settle  the 
question  }  Is  it  certain  that  the  word,  when  adapted  to 
Jewish  ideas  and  Jewish  rites,  meant  precisely  what  it  did 
in  the  days  of  Homer  and  Pindar  }  I  humbly  conceive 
it  might  be  as  well  to  call  the  Evangelists  and  Apostles 
themselves,  and  ask  them  what  they  meant.  But,  says 
the  examiner,  Pindar,  and  Homer,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Greek  classics,  have  settled  the  questionwh3.t  Evangelists 
and  Apostles  'jnust  mean  :  and.  so,  I  shall  show,  he 
determines  that  they  shall  mean,  if  he  has  to  get  this 
meaning  out  of  them  by  torture.  But  what  is  the  use  of 
calling   up   Matthew,  and   Mark,  and  the   Apostles,  as 


28  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

witnesses  at  all,  if  the  question  is   settled   before  they 
come  ? 

Carson,  having  finished  his  appeal  to  the  classics,  takes 
his  position.  He  takes  his  '■'■position''''  before  we  are 
through  with  the  evidence,  or  even  come  to  that  part  of 
the  evidence  on  which  the  question  really  turns.  Before 
coming  to  the  New  Testament  he  says  (p.  79),  "  My 
position  is,  that  it  always  signifies  to  dip,  never  expressing 
anything  but  mode.''''  He  admits  that  he  has  all  the  lexi- 
cographers against  him  :*  and  I  shall  show  that  if  the  lexi- 

*  Our  Baptist  brethren  have  the  lexicographers  against  them  an 
the  question  of  the  exclusive  sense  immerse,  more  thoroughly  than 
many  of  them  seem  to  be  aware  of.  All  the  lexicographers  give 
other  significations.  And  even  the  learned  Cox  is  much  mistaken 
here.  He  defies  us  (p.  83),  "to  point  to  a  single  lexicon  vi'hich 
does  not  give  dipping,  plunging,  or  immersing,  as  the  unquestiona- 
bly settled,  and  universally  primitive  meaning  of  the  word." 

The  defiance  csn  be  met,  and  that  on  authority  which  our  Bap- 
tist brethren  are  fond  of  quoting  as  the  very  best — the  native  Greek. 
Mr.  Jx.  Robinson  (Hist,  of  Bapt.),  quoted  in  fsngilly  (p.  72),  says 
[and  it  is  often  fondly  repeated],  "The  native  Greeks  must  un- 
derstand their  own  language  better  than  foreigners,  and  they  have 
ALWAYS  understood  the  word  baptism  to  signify  dipping.^'' — "  In 
this  case,  the  Greeks  ARE  unexceptionable  guides."  If  our 
Baptist  brethren  choose  to  make  an  issue  here,  be  it  so.  Simply 
to  meet  this  challenge,  I  copy  the  followii/g  from  Chapin's  "  Primi- 
tivy  Church,"  pp.  43,  44. 

"  The  oldest  native  Greek  lexicographer  is  Hesychius,  who 
lived  in  the  fourth  century  of  the  Christian  era.  He  gives  only 
the  word  ^airroi  [bapto],  and  the  oxJy  meaning  he  gives  the  word 
is  avrXtoi  [awf?co],  to  draw  ov pumj/  water. 

"  Next  in  order  comes  Sutdas,  a  native  Greek  who  wrote  in 
the  10th  century.  He  gives  only  the  derivative  ^a-rri^cj  [baptize], 
and  defines  it  by  t\vi'oi  [jilun-'j],  to  wash.''^ — "  We  come  down  to  the 
present  century,  at  the  beginning  of  "which  we  find  Gases,  a 
\earned  Greek,  who  with  great  labor  and  pains  compiled  a  large 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  29 

cographers  make  any  account  of  the  New  Testament  or 
of  the  Christian  fathers,  they  ought  to  be  against  him. 
His  mistake  hes  here  :  he  has  appealed  to  Pindar,  and 
Aristotle,  and  the  rest  of  the  heathen  classics  ;  while  the 
proper  appeal  lies  not  to  these,  but  from  these  to  Paul, 
and  Matthew,  and  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  John,  and  the 

and  valuable  lexicon  of  the  ancient  Greek  language.  His  book,  in 
three  volumes  quarto,  is  a  work  deservedly  held  in  high  estimation 
6ya?Z,  and  is  GENERALLY  USED  BY  NATIVE  Greeks."  The  follow- 
ing are  his  definitions  of  bapto  and  baptizo  (Ed.  Venice,  3  vols., 
4to."). 

«  BAHTQ  [bapto] 

— Pps-X^o  [brecho]  to  tvct,  moisten,  bedew. 

— irXwco  [pluno]  to  wash  \viz.  clothes]. 

— ysiii^D  [gemizo]  to  Jill. 

— PvOi^co  [buthizo]  to  dip. 

— acrAcw  [antleo]  to  draw,  to  pumji  water. 
BAnTIZS2  [baptizo] 

— [ioEx<^^  [brecho]  to  wet,  moisten,  bedew. 

— Xouw  [louo]  to  wash,  to  bathe. 

— avrXsM  [antleo]  to  draw,  to  pump  xoater^ 
Mr.  Chapin  derives  the  above  from  a  copy  of  Gases,  belonging 
to  E.  A.  Sophocles,  the  Greek  grammarian.  Another  copy,  I  am 
informed,  is  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Dixwell,  Principal  of  the  Latin 
School,  Boston.  The  work  is  principally  a  translation  of 
Schneider's  Greek- German  Lexicon,  upon  which  Passow's  is 
based.  The  significations  constitute  rather  a  glossary,  than  the 
strict  definitions  of  a  lexicon  ;  and  each  signification  is  applicable, 
not  to  every  passage  in  the  language,  but  only  to  its  own  class  of 
passages.  "  Transmontanus"  has  absurdly  endeavored  to  show 
the  absurdity  of  the  whole,  by  improperly  applying  a  particular 
gloss  to  cases  to  which  it  is  not  applicable.  That,  however,  does 
not  invalidate  the  facts,  nor  defeat  the  purpose  for  which  the 
definitions  of  Gases  are  introduced — viz.  to  meet  the  challenge 
so  constantly  thrown  out  by  our  Baptist  brethren.  No  part  of 
my  argument  is  based  upon  the  credit  of  any  lexicographer. 


30  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

fathers  who  wrote  in  Greek.  He  has  taken  his  stand  too 
soon,  and  decided  the  question  before  coming  to  the 
most  important  testimony. 

But  having  made  his  appeal  and  taken  his  position, 
Paul  and  Mark  must  be  stretched  on  this  bed  of  heathen 
classics  :  and  I  shall  show  how  unmercifully  they  are 
stretched  and  racked  in  the  process. 

Thus,  when  in  the  Apocryphal  book  of  Ecclesiasticus, 
which  was  translated  into  Greek  for  the  use  of  the 
Alexandrian  Jews,  about  170  years  before  Christ,  it  is 
said,  Eccl.  xxxiv.  30,  "  He  that  washeth  himself  because 
of  a  dead  body  and  toucheth  it  again,  what  availeth  his 
washing.''''  The  word  icasheth  here  is  ^amilouBvog — 
"  BEING  BAPTIZED."     The  allusiou  is  to  Numb.  xix.  16. 

"  And  whosoever  toucheth  one  that  is  slain  with  a 
sword  in  the  open  fields,  or  a  dead  body,"  &c. — "  A 
clean  person  shall  take  the  hyssop,  and  dip  it  in  the 
water,  and  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent,"  &c.  ..."  and 
upon  him  that  toucheth  a  bone,  or  one  slain,  or  a  grave." 
The  conclusion  should  be,  I  think,  inevitably,  that  the 
baptizing  here  was  done  by  sprinlclijig^  and  that  here  is 
a  clear  instance  in  the  Alexandrine  Greek  in  which  the 
word  baptize  is  used  to  denote  a  purification  by  sprinkling^ 
with  no  reference  to  dipping  or  immersing  at  all. 

But  Carson  says.  No.  "  When  I  have  proved  the 
meaning  of  a  word  by  the  authority  of  the  whole  con- 
sent of  Greek  literature,  I  will  not  surrender  it  to  the 
supposition  of  the  strict  adherence  of  the  Jewish  nation^  in 
the  time  of  writing  the  Apocrypha,  to  the  Mosaic  ritual.'^'' 

The  question  then  comes  to  this  dilemma  :  either  the 
Jews  had  abandoned  this  mode  of  purifying  from  a  dead 
body,  as  specifically  and  minutely  pointed  out  by  God — 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  31 

or,  here  was  a  baptism  by  sprinkling.  Carson  is  driven 
here  to  assume,  and  that  without  the  least  shadow  or^re- 
/ewce  of  authority,  that  when  God  had  commanded  a  pu- 
rification hy  sprinkling,  the  Jewish  nation  had  turned 
about  and  made  an  immersion  of  it.  If  we  do  not  allow 
this  assumption  to  pass  with  no  proof,  and  receive  it 
as  an  established  certainty,  then  Carson's  "  position"  has 
been  overthrown,  and  here  is  a  baptism  by  sprinkling  * 

But  difficulties  multiply  upon  him  as  he  proceeds. 
Thus,  in  Mark  vii.  4  :  "  And  when  they  come  from  tne 
market,  except  they  wash,  they  eat  not."  The  original 
is,  "  Except  they  baptize  themselves,  they  eat  not ;" 
which,  I  shall  show  hereafter,  is.  Except  they  "  wash 
their  hands y^^  i.  e.,  perform  a  ceremonial  purification  upon 
them. 

The  learned  Campbell,  who  wished  very  much  to 
establish  immersion  as  the  proper  meaning  of  baptism, 

*=  Mr.  Carson  replies,  "  The  question  has  not  come  to  this ;  for 
I  can  do  without  this  supposition  altogether."  T  am  testing  the 
soundness  of  this  position,  not  inquiring  whether  he  can  do  with- 
out it.  He  seems  to  forget  that  I  am  here  examining  his  prin- 
ciples, not  answering  his  other  arguments  in  detail.  Mr.  Carson 
says,  "  Why  does  he  say  I  am  driven  ?"  "  Why  does  he  say  I 
assume?''''  I  said  he  was  driven: — 1.  Because  his  principles  re 
quire  him  to  make  that  assumption  ;  2.  Because  I  supposed  it 
incredible,  that  so  able  a  tactician  would  resort  to  ground  so  un- 
tenable without  being  driven.  And  Mr.  Carson  now  acknowledges 
that  what  he  assumed  here,  he  assumed  "  merely  as  a  possi- 
bility," and  that  while  he  assumes  it,  he  does  "  not  believe  it  to 
be  a  fact."  If  so,  then,  on  the  principle  in  question,  he  must 
"  surrender"  his  "  position"  to  the  "  supposition  of  the  strict 
adherence  of  the  Jewish  nation,  in  the  time  of  writing  the 
Apocrypha,  to  the  Mosaic  ritual;"  for  the  assumption,  on  which 
alone  he  rests  his  refusal  to  surrender,  turns  out  to  be  untrue. 


32  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

could  see  no  other  mode  of  getting  along  here  than  by 
supposing  that  the  hands  were  dipped,  and  so  the  inrimer- 
sion  (or  baptism)  predicated  of  the  hands.  He  knew 
very  well  that  no  history  of  Jewish  customs  could  fur 
nish  a  scrap  of  evidence  to  show  that  whenever  Jews 
had  been  in  the  market^  they  always  immersed  their  whole 
bodies.  But  unfortunately  for  him  the  original  language 
is  so  definite  as  to  show  conclusively  that  the  baptism 
here  spoken  of  is  the  baptism  of  the  persons :  ^'  Except 
they  (the  persons)  are  baptized:"  not  "Except  their 
hands  are  baptized."  Carson  reproves  this  fault  of 
Campbell  (p.  101),  and  says,  that  Dr.  Campbell's  notion 
that  this  baptism  refers  to  the  hands  as  a  washing  by 
"  dipping  them''^  he  '*  does  not  approve."  He  very  pro- 
perly calls  it,  "  an  ingenious  conceit,  icithout  any  authority 
from  the  practice  of  the  language.''^  But  how  does  Carson 
himself  dispose  of  the  difficulty  ?  In  a  very  summary 
way,  indeed.  He  has  shown  the  meaning  of  baptize 
from  the  heathen  classics :  and  he  proves  the  universal 
custom  of  the  Jews,  always  to  immerse  themselves,  from 
the  meaning  of  the  word!  I  beg  his  pardon  :  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  is  the  very  thing  that  is  in  question  here. 
We  cannot  allow  him  to  prove  a  matter  in  question  by 
first  assuming  it  as  true.*     What  is  the  historical  fact  as 

*  To  this  Mr.  Carson  replies,  *'  Assume  the  point  in  question  ! 
I  would  almost  as  soon  be  convicted  of  high  treason.  I  do  not 
assume  the  meaning  of  the  word  here  ;  I  rest  it  on  the  proof  pre- 
viously alleged." 

Just  so  one  might  argue,  who  should  not  allow  writers  on 
ecclesiastical  things  to  explain  for  themselves  their  own  meaning 
of  the  ^'ordi  provisions.  The  question  here  is,  What  do  Matthew^ 
and  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  Paul,  mean  by  the  word  baptize  ?  Mr. 
Carson  assumes  that  he  has  proved  what  they  mean  by  the  tes- 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  33 

to  what  the  Jews  did  before  eating  whenever  they  came 
from  the  market  ?  Settle- this,  and  you  settle  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  baptize  in  this  connection.  But  no  ; 
Carson  is  determined  that  the  historical  fact  shall  be 
settled  by  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  the  thing  in  dis- 
2)ute  shall  be  proved  by  itself;  no  matter  though  all  his- 
tory is  against  it.  He  has  proved  the  meaning  of  the 
word  from  the  heathen  classics  ;  and  no  matter  for  any 
difficulties  in  the  way  ;  the  Evangelists  shall  mean  im- 
mersion by  it.  No  matter  though  it  is  proved  that  the 
Jews  purified  themselves  hy  pouring  water  on  the  hands; 

limony  of  Homer  and  Xenophon  and  Ai'istotle  j  and  then  says,  "  I 
assume  merely,  that  the  meaning  of  the  word  in  the  language 
must  be  the  meaning  here."  Very  well;  that  is  assuming  the 
very  point  in  debate.  Would  not  Mr.  Carson  think  so,  in  the  case 
of  one  who  should  argue  in  the  same  manner,  concerning  what 
must  be  the  meaning  of  the  writers  on  ecclesiastical  things,  in 
their  use  of  the  word  provisions  ?  Mr.  Carson  does  assume  the 
point  in  question ;  and  even  says,  p.  397,  concerning  Marie  vii.  4, 
"  Either  the  persons  referred  to  were  immersed  on  the  occasion 
in  question,  or  the  intrepid  writer  testifies  a  falsehood."  His 
faith  in  the  inspired  writer's  veracity  shall  not  weigh  a  feather 
against  his  faith  in  his  own  infallible  lexicography.  ''  No,"  says 
Mr.  Carson,  '•  between  these  alternatives  my  faith  cannot  hesi- 
tate." Mr.  Carson  concludes,  "  As  I  would  not  charge  Mr.  H. 
with  a  want  of  candor,  I  must  charge  on  him  a  want  of  perspi- 
cacity, in  not  being  able  to  discriminate  between  resting  ou  pre- 
vious proof,  and  mere  assumption  of  the  point  in  question.  This 
is  the  only  point  on  which  Mr.  H.  is  even  plausible  ;  and  here  he 
is  plausible  only  to  persons  who  have  as  little  discrimination  as 
himself."  As  to  the  "  want  of  perspicacity,"  and  the  "  amazing 
want  of  discrimination"  which  Mr.  Carson  so  earnestly  charges 
upon  me,  that  is  a  matter  which  it  would  ill  become  me  to 
debate ;  and  I  humbly  submit  that  Mr.  Carson  has,  in  these 
respects,  entirely  mistaken  the  question. 


34  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

and  that  "  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews" 
was  from  "  water  pots,  holding  about  three  firkins"  (at 
the  largest  computation  about  two-thirds  of  a  barrel) 
**  a-piece,"  from  which  water  might  be  poured^  or  run 
on  the  hands  ;  but  in  which  no  man  could  be  immersed. 
"7"  care  not^^^  says  he,  "  that  ten  thousand  such  examples 
were  brought  forward;''''  he  insists  that  the  word  baptize 
shall  here  mean  to  c?i/?,  viz.,  to  dip  the  whole  body; 
because  Greek  literature  so  uses  the  word  baptize.  No 
matter  how  improbable  it  may  be  that  the  Jews  always 
immersed  their  whole  bodies  as  often  as  they  came  from 
the  market ;  no  matter  though  no  record  or  trace  of  such 
a  custom  is  found  anywhere  in  the  world,  unless  it  be  in 
this  assumed  meaning  of  the  word  baptize  ;  no  matter 
though  no  such  custom  has  been  heard  of  the  Jews, 
wherever  they  have  been  dispersed  throughout  the  world 
for  so  many  ages  to  this  day  ;  no  matter  that  though 
the  purifying  is  still  kept,  it  is  still  performed  hy  pouring 
water  on  the  hands)  or  holding  them  in  a  stream  of  water 
running  from  a  vessel : — Carson  maintains  still  and  stout- 
ly that,  "  We  have  here  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
for  the  Jewish  custom.''''  "If,"  says  he,  *'  I  have  estab- 
lished the  acceptation  of  this  word  by  the  consent  of  use, 
even  an  inexplicable  difficulty  in  this  case  would  not  af- 
fect the  certainty  of  my  conclusion."  I  humbly  beg 
leave  to  differ  from  him  ;  and  you  may  judge  whether  I 
have  alleged  sufficient  reason.  The  Holy  Spirit  has 
indeed  said  that  the  Jews  were  baptized  as  often  as  they 
came  from  the  market ;  but  the  Holy  Spirit  has  not  said 
that  the  word  baptize  here  means  to  immerse.  The 
meaning  is  the  thing  in  question.  And,  it  seems  to  me, 
that  a  reference  to  the  plain  facts  in  the  case  authorizes 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  35 

US  to  consider  rather  this,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  regarded 
that  as  a  baptism  of  the  person^  which  was  performed  by 
pouring  uater  on  the  hands  ;  as  I  shall  show  more  particu- 
larly hereafter.  I  am  not  now  to  follow  arguments  in 
particular,  farther  than  to  point  out  the  fallacy  in  the 
principle  of  arguing.  If  Carson  has  failed  here,  he  is 
overthrown,  and  entirely  so.  I  do  think  that  he  is  shown 
to  have  reasoned  from  false  principles,  and  to  have  fail- 
ed. And  I  know^  of  few  among  the  more  intelligent 
Baptists,  who  will  not  be  ready  to  admit,  that  if  the  very 
basis  of  Carson's  argument  be  overthrown,  the  whole 
fabric  of  their  peculiar  system  is  broken  up  and  falls  to 
the  ground. 

Carson  argues  in  the  same  manner  with  regard  to  bap- 
tism of  the  tables  (couches)  in  Mark  vii.  4.  He  says 
(p.  114),  "But  with  respect  to  Mark  vii.  4,  though  it 
were  proved  that  the  couches  could  not  be  immersed^  I 
would  not  yield  an  inch  of  the  ground  I  have  occupied." 
Now^  how  shall  we  argue  with  a  man  who  will  not  ad- 
mit an  absolute  impossibility  to  be  any  obstacle  in  the 
way  of  his  theory;  the  couches  were  baptized,  and  if  it 
"  be  proved'''*  that  "  the  couches  could  not-  be  immersed ^'''^ 
he  will  not  yield  an  inch  ;  he  will  maintain  still  that  they 
were  immersed.  "  And  I  may  add,"  says  he  (p.  116), 
"  that  the  couches  might  have  been  so  constructed,  that 
they  might  be  conveniently  taken  to  pieces."  Indeed  ! 
what  s'nall  we  not  allow  him  to  suppose  might  have  been, 
rather  than  grant  the  possibility  that  the  Jews  "  might^^ 
have  used  this  word  "baptize"  in  a  sense  different  from 
that  of  the  old  heathen  Greeks  1* 

*  To  this  Mr.  Carson  replies,  "  Twill  make  this  supposition,  Mr. 
H.,  without  waiting  for  your  allowance."    "  Here,  again,  I  must 


36  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Nor  would  it  seem  to  make  any  matter  to  Mr.  Carson, 
how  often  people  had  been  "  baptized''  in  other  modes 
than  immersion  ;  he  would  still  maintain  his  ground. 
"  I  care  not,"  says  he,  ^'  I  care  not  if  there  nev^er  had 
been  a  human  being  immersed  in  water  since  the  crea- 
tion of  the  world,  if  the  word  denotes  immersion,  and  if 
Christ  enjoins  it,  I  will  contend  for  it  as  confidently  as  if 
all  nations  had  been  daily  in  the  practice  of  baptizing" 
(immersing)  "  each  other"  (p.  155).  True,  if  the  word 
means  immerse,  and  never  means  anything  else.  But  I 
humbly  suppose  that  the  common  practice  of  a  people 
who  called  a  purifying  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  a  bap- 
tism, would  have  some  little  weight  upon  the  question 

discipline  him  on  first  principles.  The  greatest  part  of  my  trouble 
is  to  teach  my  opponents  the  laws  of  reasoning.  Not  one  of  them 
knows  when  the  proof  lies  upon  him,  and  when  it  lies  upon  me." 

"No  man  is  entitled  to  appear  in  the  field  of  controversy, 

till  he  has  studied  the  laws  of  the  combat,"  ...  .  "  I  have  not 
the  smallest  need  for  the  supposition;  nevertheless  I  will  retain 
it  carefully,  as  a  safe  last  resort." 

Surely,  Mr.  Carson  must  make  this  supposition  if  he  will.  His 
principles  do  indeed  suggest  the  expediency  of  "  retaining  it,"  how- 
ever improbable  as  "  a  safe  last  resort."  lam,  hov^^ever,  somewhat 
consoled  under  the  "  ignorance,"  "  want  of  perspicacity,"  and 
"  amazing  want  of  discrimination,"  which  Mr.  Carson  charges 
upon  me.  "  Not  one"  of  Mr.  Carson's  opponents  "knows  when 
the  proof  lies"  upon  himself,  and  when  it  lies  upon  Mr.  Carson. 
Mr.  Carson's  "  greatest  trouble  is,  to  teach  them  the  lav^^s  of 
reasoning."  And  yet  Mr.  Carson  has  had  such  men  as  Ewing, 
Wardlaw,  Bickersteth,  Henderson,  Dr.  Miller,  and  the  younger 
Dr.  Beecher  among  his  opponents.  No  man  among  them  appears 
to  have  been  "  entitled  to  enter  into  the  field  of  controversy,"  Mr* 
Carson  being  judge. 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  37 

what  that  people  did  in  fact  understand  by  the  words 
"baptize"  and  ^'baptism."* 

So  when  Carson  comes  to  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  it  is  nothing  to  him  that  the  Scriptures  represent 
this  uniformly  under  the  mode  of  "  pouring,"  "  coming 
down  like  rain,"  "  and  shedding  forth."  He  says,  "i; 
is  a  fixed  point,  that  baptism  means  immersion;'''*  "and  in 
the  examination  of  the  reference  in  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,  NOTHING  CAN  BE  ADMITTED  inconsistent  with  this  ;" 
and  then  adds  (p.  164),  "  The  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
MUST  HAVE  a  reference  to  inunersion,  because — baptism 
is  immersion  /""j*     I  would  reply.   That,  Mr.   Carson,  is 

*  Mr.  Carson  complains  of  this  representation.  "  Do  I  admit," 
says  he,  "  that  people  may  be  baptized  in  other  modes  than  immer- 
sion, while  I  contend  that  nothing  but  immersion  is  baptism?" 
Certainly  not ;  he  makes  no  such  admission.  We  argue  that  the 
Jews  were  in  the  daily  practice  of  performing  baptisms,  which 
we  attempt  to  prove  were  not  immersions.  Mr.  Carson  refuses 
to  admit  any  arguments  from  the  Jewish  customs  to  prove  the 
meaning  of  the  word ;  he  has  already  fixed  the  meaning  of  the 
word,  and  now  that  word  shall  determine  the  Jewish  custom  ;  i.  e., 
the  thing  in  question  shall  be  proved  by  assuming  it  to  be  true; 
In  this  state  of  the  case,  Mr.  Carson  "  cares  not  if  there  never  had 
been  a  human  being  immersed  in  water  since  the  creation  of  the 
world;"  if  the  word  (with  the  heathen  Greeks)  "  denotes  immer- 
sion, and  if  Christ  enjoins  it"  (viz.  by  the  use  of  that  word),  he 
"  will  contend  for  it  as  confidently  as  if  all  nations  had  been  in  the 
daily  practice"  of  [immersing]  "  each  other."  When  I  show  the 
fallacy  of  this  mode  of  reasoning,  Mr.  Carson  cries  out, '  Is  this  a 
want  of  discernment,  or  a  want  of  honesty  ?"  Upon  a  review  of 
the  premises  I  do  not  see  that  it  necessarily  involves  either  alter- 
native. It  appears  to  me  that  Mr.  Carson's  principle  has  neces- 
sarily led  him  into  this  absurdity. 

t  To  this  Mr.  Carson  replies,  "  Mr.  H.  represents  me  as,  in 
these  sentences,  taking  the  "very  thing  for  granted,  and  replies, 


38  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

the  very  thing  to  be  proved  ;  whether  baptism  is,  ex- 
clusively, immersion.  But  he  insists  upon  it  directly 
in  the  same  page,  and  puts  his  words  in  italics  ;  "  Pour- 
ing cannot  be  the  figurative  baptism^  because  baptism 
never  literalhj  denotes  pouring.'''' — "  Pouring  <!ould  not 
represent  the  pouring  of  the  Spirit,  because  the  Spirit  is 
not  literally  poured."* 

That  is  the  very  thing  to  be  proved.  And,  Mr.  H.,  is  it  not  on  the 
ground  that  I  have  proved  if?  "Why  do  I  call  it  a  fixed  point  1 
Is  it  not  because  I  hz-d  Jixed  the  point  1  ....  I  must  charge  Mr. 
H.  as  having  so  little  perspicacity,  for  I  am  convinced  it  is  not  a 
want  of  integrity,  as  not  to  perceive  the  nature  of  an  assumption 
without  proof." 

Mr.  Carson  had  "  fixed"  his  point  from  the  heathen  Greeks,  and 
then  assumed  that  the  New  Testament  writers  must  mean  the 
same  thing.  "When  we  offer  to  show  the  meaning  of  the  word 
from  the  Scriptitrcs  themselves ;  O  no,  he  hdiS Jixed  that  point;  they 
must  mean  what  the  heathen  Greeks  mean  !  If  this  is  not  assum- 
ing the  point  in  question,  then  1  must  even  plead  guilty  to  Mr. 
Carson's  charge,  of"  ha\'ing  so  little  perspicacity." 

*  To  my  remarks  on  this  point,  Mr.  Carson  replies,  "  He  has 
not  the  perspicacity  to  perceive  that  I  rest  this  assertion  on  the 
ground  which  I  had  already  gained  'with  my  sword  and  my 
bow.' "...."  I  can  give  argument,  but  I  cannot  give  my  oppo- 
nents discernment." 

I  certainly  do  suppose  that  Mr.  Carson  here  again  begs  tbe 
question ;  and  humbly  submit,  that  the  mode  under  which  the 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  figuratively  represented  by  God  himself, 
is  not  only  worthy  to  be  weighed,  but  entirely  decisive  of  the 
question.  Nor  do  I  suppose  that  it  alters  the  question,  if  the 
Spirit  is  not  lita-ally  poured,  while  the  Lord  himself  uses  that  Ian 
guage. 

Mr.  Carson  says  of  his  argument  (viz.  that  pouring  could  not 
represent  the  pouring  of  the  Spirit,  because  the  Spirit  is  not 
literalhj  poured),  "  This  is  a  fact  which  common  sense  will  never 
question."  .  .  .  .  «  Yet,"  says  he,  "  obvious  and  self-evident  as  it 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  39 

I  would  reply, —  But,  Mr.  Carson,  does  not  God  him- 
self say,  *'  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  V  But,  replies  he, 
"  Believers  are  said  to  be  immersed  into  the  Spirit,  not 
because  there  is  anything  like  immersion  in  the  manner 
of  the  reception  of  the  Spirit,  but  from  the  resemblance 
between  an  object  soaked  in  a  fluid,  and  the  sanctification 
of  all  the  members  of  the  body  and  faculties  of  the  soul*' 
(pp.  167,  168). 

I  say  nothing  about  the  resemblance  between  "  soak- 
ing''^ and  '^  sanctifying  ;"  but  he  says  truly,  there  is 
"  nothing  like  immersion''^  in  the  manner  of  receiving  the 
Spirit ;  nor,  of  course,  is  there  in  the  manner  of  confer- 
ring it ;  yet  a  baptism  there  is,  Christ  being  witness  ; 
and  the  mode  of  that  baptism  is  represented  by  a  '''■pour- 
ing oaij^^  ''  shedding  forthy"*  '*  coming  down,'^''  "  falling 
upon.^"* 

But  immediately  Mr.  Carson  responds  (p.  168), 
"  There  was  a  real  baptism  (immersion)  in  the  emblems 
of  the  Spirit.'" 

I  answer,  Christ  did  not  say,  ye  shall  be  "  immersed'^'* 

is,  I  believe  I  am  the  first  who  pointed  it  out.  On  this  I  rest  as 
on  the  pillar  of  Heaven  ;  it  is  an  axiom  that  can  never  be  ques- 
tioned by  a  sound  mind.  Is  there  any  pouring  in  the  Godhead  ? 
It  is  blasphemy  to  suppose  it." 

Nobody  ever  did  suppose  it.  Mr.  Carson  has  made  no  discovery. 
But  surely,  when  the  Lord  speaks  of  Baptizing  with  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  speaks  of  it  uniformly  under  the  figure  of  pouring, 
shedding  upon,  falling  upon,  it  cannot  be  blasphemy  to  argue,  from 
this,  the  idea  of  baptism  which  the  spirit  represents  under  these 
figures.  There  is  a  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  there  is  not 
in  the  Scripture  any  figure  of  the  immersion  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  it 
there  had  been,  Mr.  Carson  would  not  have  thought  it  blasphemy 
to  argue  the  mode  of  baptism  from  such  a  figure. 


40  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

into  the  "  emblems''^  of  the  Spirit ;  he  said,  "ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost  ;"  with  the  Spirii  itself, 
not  with  its  "  emblems^ 

I  would  follow  Mr.  Carson  further  here,  did  I  deem  it 
necessary.  But  I  think  I  have  gone  far  enough  to  show 
that  he  has  failed,  most  signally  failed,  in  that  which  is 
the  very  foundation  and  element  of  his  argument.  He 
will  prove  everything  if  we  will  let  him  assume  every- 
thing. But  we  cannot.  His  principles  of  reasoning  are 
unsound  ;  and  if  you  allow  him  these  unsound  principles, 
he  still  begs  the  question.  You  have  seen  how  the 
Evangelists  are  put  to  the  torture  when  they  are  stretched 
on  this  Procrustean  bed  of  the  heathen  Greeks.  Even 
granting  that  Carson  has  rightly  settled  the  question 
with  regard  to  the  heathen  Greeks,  I  think  I  have  shown 
his  argument  to  be  as  inconclusive  as  that  which  should 
make  the  word  "  Provisions"  in  the  statute  of  Edward 
III.  mean  victuals ;  or  as  that  which  would  make  re- 
generation consist  in  being  born  of"  water  and  of  wind  ;" 
or  as  that  which  would  make  the  peculiar  infidelity  of 
the  Sadducees  consist  in  denying  that  there  is  any 
"  rising  up^'^'*  or  "  messenger,'''*  or  "  wind.'''' 

We  might  rest  the  debate  here, — but  I  think  that 
Carson  has  even  failed  to  make  out  his  case  from  the 
Greek  classics.  The  limits  of  this  work  forbid  me  to 
enter  upon  an  extended  survey  of  this  part  of  the  field  ; 
nor  is  it  necessary,  as  a  failure  in  a  single  instance  is 
fatal  to  Mr.  Carson's  argument.  Take,  then,  the  instance 
cited  by  Mr.  Carson  (p.  61  of  his  last  edition)  ;  the 
Sybilline  verse  quoted  by  Plutarch  in  his  life  of  Theseus  ; 
which,  says  Mr.  Carson,  "  exactly  determines  the  mean- 
ing of  baptizo."      Theseus   consulted    the   Oracle    at 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  4l 

Delphi  concerning  his  government.  The  Oracle  pre- 
dicted the  safety  of  the  new  state,  and  identifying  The- 
seus with  his  state,  it  concluded  with  the  words,  '^  Thou 
shalt  ride  a  bladder  in  the  surge  ;"  or  in  the  free  transla- 
tion of  Langhorne, 

"  Safe  o'er  the  surges  of  the  foaming  tide." 
With  this,  sa^'s  Plutarch,  agrees  the  Sybil's  prophecy  con- 
cerning Athens, '^orxo J  ^annZ''^  8vvat,deioioi)  Oifiig  butiv. 
To  this  verse  INIr.  Carson  gives  the  following  translation, 

"Thou  mayest  be  dipped,  O  bladder,  but  art  not  fated 
to  sink!" 

I  agree  with  Mr.  Carson,  that  this  exactly  deternnines 
the  meaning  of  the  word  Baptize  in  this  connection ;  it 
is  worth  a  hundred  ordinary  passages  for  fixing  critically 
the  accurate  classical  meaning  :  but  unfortunately  for 
Carson's  argument,  it  fixes  it  against  him. 

The  uGTiog  (^askos)  is  the  ancient  bottle,  of  the  whole 
skin  of  an  animal ;  which,  blown  up  like  a  bladder,  rides 
the  weaves  without  sinking  or  even  suffering  an  immer- 
sion. The  Oracle  says,  "  Thou  mayest  be  baptized,  O 
bottle,  but  it  is  net  allowed  thee  to — Svvuc  (diinai). 
Determine  the  meaning  of  dunai  here,  and  you  fix  the 
meaning  o(  baptize  in  the  same  connection.  Mr.  Carson 
assumes  that  it  means  to  sink,  in  distinction  from  a  simple 
dipping  into,  or  under.  But  such  is  not  its  meaning. 
Whoever  v/ill  consult  the  numerous  instances  cited  by 
Donnegan,  will  perceive  that  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
word  is  as  he  states  it,  "  to  go  into,  or  under,^''  "  to  enter,^^ 
"  to  penetrate.''^  This  primary  idea  is  the  one  which  he 
clearly  traces  in  all  the  examples  of  its  secondary 
signification.  Not  an  example  can  be  found  in  which  it 
signifies  to  sink,  in  distinction   from,  a  simple   dipping. 


42  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

The  idea  is  that  of  entering^  penetrating  (by  passing 
from  one  medium  into  another)  e.g.  ^eXog  sig  eyxsqpaXov  dv^ 
the  arrow  penetrated  the  brain.     Horn.  11.  xviii,  376. 

So  Crusius,  in  his  Homeric  Lexicon  (translated  by 
Prof.  Henry  Smith),  gives,  as  the  primary  signification 
of  the  word,  "  to  go  intOj  to  enter^  to  penetrate  into^  to 
plunge  into ;"  which  primary  senses  he  traces  in  all  the 
instances  of  its  secondary  significations  throughout  the 
Homeric  writings.  NoM'here  does  it  signify  a  sinHngr, 
in  distinction  from  a  simple  immersion^  as  Mr.  Carson 
erroneously  supposes.  It  is  used  for  entering  into  a 
house,  into  a  city,  into  a  cave,  and  for  plunging  into  the 
SEA,  where  it  certainly  signifies  no  sinking,  in  opposition 
to  a  s\m\AQ  immersing. 

The  meaning  is  so  certain  that  the  derivative  8vTrig 
signifies  a  diver  ;  certainly  not  one  who  sinks,  rather 
than  one  who  simply  plunges  in  and  rises  again.  So  the 
other  derivative  dvnxog  signifies  one  expert  in  diving : 
surely  not  one  expert  in  sinking  to  his  destruction,  and 
that  in  direct  opposition  to  simply  plunging  in  and  com- 
ing up  again.  The  meaning  of  dvvav  is  further  corro- 
borated, and  Tendered  absolutely  certain,  by  the  consider- 
ation that  when  a  sinking  is  to  be  signified,  or  any 
thorough  going  down,  hcctu  dvco  (the  intensive  compound 
of  ^uw^  is  employed. 

The  Oracular  line  then  reads  thus : 

"  Thou  mayest  be  baptized,  O  bottle,  but  it  is  not 
Allowed  to  thee  tog*o  under. "^^  Thou  mayest  be  dashed^ 
wet,  washed,  but  it  is  not  possible  for  thee  to  penetrate, 
go  under.  Here  is  a  classic  baptism  in  which  it  is  im- 
possible for  the  subject  to  go  under  water.* 

*  My  good  friend,  Transmontanus  (p.  40),  gives  on  this  passage 
an   amusinff  specinaen   of  what  he   calls   "  plain    grananaatical 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  43 

Take  another  of  Mr.  Carson's  examples,  p.  58.  "  Plu- 
tarch, speaking  of  a  Roman  general  dying  c"  nis  wounds, 
says,  that  having  dipped  {baptized)  his  hand  in  blood, 
he  wrote  the  inscription  for  a  trophy."  "  Here,"  says 
Carson,  "  the  mode  of  the  action  cannot  be  questioned. 
The  instrument  of  writing  is  dipped  in  the  coloring  fluid." 
Suppose  "w^e  grant  it.  My  pen  is  the  instrument  of 
writing,  and  I  dip  it  in  the  ink  when  I  write ;  surely  I 
never  immerse  it  in  ink  when  I  write.  When  will  our 
Baptist  brethren  cease  this  play  upon  the  word  dipping, 
when  they  are  to  prove  a  total  immersion  ! 

Another  instance  is  cited  by  Carson  (p.  21)  from 
Aristotle  ;  of  "  a  land  uninhabited,  whose  coast  was  full 
of  sea-weeds,"  which  at  ebb  tide,  ^rj  ^annleadat^  was  not 
baptized :  but  at  full  tide,  xaTaitlv'Qeadai^  was  dashed 
oyer  by  the  weaves.  The  opposite  of  not  being  baptized 
here,  is,  not  the  dipping  of  the  land  in  the  waves,  but 
dashing  the  waves  over  the  land,  or,  if  you  please, 
washing  over  it,  overflowing  it.  Mr.  Carson,  even,  is 
compelled  to  admit  that  "  the  water  comes  over  the 
land,"  and  that  "  there  is  no  actual  exemplification  of 
the  mode  expressed  by  this  word"  (viz.  in  his  sense  of 
immersion).  Yet  very  preposterously,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  he  still  contends  that  the  word  here  ''  still  expresses 

criticism."  "BaTrn^w,"  says  he,  "  is  an  active  verb ;  ^wm  [duno\ 
the  verb  rendered  "  to  sink^^^  is  neuter.  BaTrri^;;  [baptize],  therefore, 
in  the  passive  voice,  means,  thou  mayest  be  immersed  by  the  action 
of  some  external  agent;  Awai  [dunai],  to  sink,  in  a  neuter  sense, 
i.  e.,  of  its  own  accord.  Thou  mayest  be  immersed  (viz.  by  the 
agency  of  another)  ;  it  is  not  permitted  thee  to  sink  (of  thyself)." 
Wonderful  security  to  the  city  this  !  Not  to  be  able  to  sink  of  its 
own  accord,  but  to  he  fated  to  be  liable  to  be  sunk  "  by  the  agency 
of  another."  The  criticism  of  "  Transmontanus"  bears  with 
itself  its  own  refutation  in  its  absurdity. 


^5fP 


44  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

that  mode  ;"  and  strange  !  that  "  the  word  has  been 
employed  for  the  very  purpose  of  expressing  it ;"  (viz. 
the  mode  of  immersion  in  this  application  of  water  to  the 
land !) 

Take  another  example  (Carson,  p.  59)  ;  Homer  repre- 
senting the  death  of  one  of  his  heroes,  says,  "  He  struck 
him  across  the  neck  with  his  heavy  sword,  and  the  whole 
sword  became  warm  with  blood."  On  this  one  scholiast 
remarks,  that  "  the  sword  is  represented  as  baptized  in 
blood."  Another  says, "  In  that  phrase,  Homer  expresses 
himself  with  the  greatest  energy,  signifying  that  the 
sword  was  so  baptized  as  to  be  even  warmed"  (6?  (9a:r- 
jiadsvTog  ovrco  tov  ^icpovg^  (bg  ts  d8Qfiavdr[vat)^  "  by  a  strong 
figure,"  says  Dr.  Pond,  "  it  might  be  said  to  be  bathed  in 
blood.  But  in  this  case  the  bathing  must  have  been 
effected  by  the  blood  flowing  over  the  sword."  And 
Prof.  Ripley  says  at  last,  "  the  sword  was  so  overflowed 
[with  blood]  as  even  to  become  heated." 

So  where  Aristophanes,  in  his  account  of  the  Platonic 
banquet  (Ripley,  p.  17),  says,  "  lam  one  of  those  (^e^an- 
riafieviav^  baptized)  drenched  yesterday  ;"  viz.  with  Mane. 
He  had  not  been  immersed  in  wine,  even  in  figure.  So 
in  another  place,  one  had  baptized  {^unriaaoa)  Alexander 
with  wine.    The  figure  is  of  drenching,  not  of  immersing. 

Mr.  Carson's  ancient  classics  fail  him  ;  and  we  have 
seen  that  if  they  did  not,  their  entire  agreement,  in  using 
the  word  to  denote  only  an  immersion,  would  by  no 
means  settle  the  question.  We  must  go  to  the  New 
Testament.  We  must  learn  the  sacred  use  of  the  term. 
We  must  learn  what  Evangelists  and  Apostles  deemed 
essential  to  baptism  j  and  if  we  make  anything  essential 
which  they  did  not,  we  are  found  guilty  of  adding  to 
the  word  of  God. 


11. 

MODE  OF  BAPTISM. 

SPRINKLING    AND    POURING,    SCRIPTURAL    MODES. 


MATTHEW,  xxviii,  19. 
Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all   nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


So  far,  we  have  been  occupied  in  discussing  the 
principles  of  interpretation  to  be  applied  or  admitted  in 
determining  what  it  is  to  baptize  ;  and  in  making  an 
application  of  these  principles  to  the  mode  of  argumen- 
tation adopted  by  our  baptist  brethren. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  three  inquiries  laid  down  as  the 
plan  of  my  argument  in  the  preceding  discourse. 

I.  What  would  the  immediate  disciples  of  our  lord 

UNDERSTAND    FROM    THE    SIMPLE    FACE    OF    THE    COMMAND 
"  BAPTIZE  r" 

II.  Is  THERE  SATISFACTORY  EVIDENCE  THAT  THEY  AL- 
WAYS ADMINISTERED  THE  ORDINANCE  BY  IMMERSION  .''      - 

III.  On  THE  SUPPOSITION  THAT  THEY  DID  SO,  IS 
THERE  EVIDENCE  THAT  THEY  CONSIDERED  THAT  ONE  MODE 
ESSENTIAL  ] 


46  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

1.  What  would  the  immediate  diaciples  of  Christ  under- 
stand from  the  simple  face  of  the  command  "Baptize  V 

In  Heb.  ix.  10,  we  read  of  a  ritual  service  ''  whicii 
stood  only  in  meats  and  drinks,  and  divers  washings." 
In   the   original,   it  is  (^diucpogoig  ^anzia^ioig)  ^  "  Divers 

BAPTISMS." 

So,  according  to  Paul,  there  were  "  baptisms''''  under 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation ;  and  they  are  alike 
wrong,  who  say  that  there  was  no  baptism  before 
John,*  and  they  who  cut  the  Bible  in  two,  and  throw 
away  the  Old  Testament,  when  they  go  to  learn  what  the 
word  Baptism  means. 

Paul  contrasts  this  dispensation  with  that  of  which 
Christ  is  High  Priest.  He  has  told  in  what  the  first  dis- 
pensation stood,  and  he  goes  on  to  say  in  what  the  new 
dispensation  does  not  stand.     "  Neither  by  the  blood  of 

goats  and  calves,  but  by  his  own  blood.'''' "  For  if  the 

blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  a  heifer 

*  We  are  often  quoted  as  though  we  held  that  John's  baptism 
was  '"'■  frovi  men  f  and  long  arguments  full  of  emotion  at  such  a 
flagrant  contradiction  of  our  Saviour  are  held,  to  prove  that  John's 
baptism  was  not  from  men.  We  never  doubted,  that  John's  bap- 
tism was  not  from  men.  And  yet  the  word  baptize^  and  the 
THING  baptize^  so  far  as  the  outward  act  is  concerned,  were  in 
common  use  long  before  John ;  as  Paul  here  witnesses.  The 
authority  for  baptizing  with  the  "  baptism  unto  repentance,''^  John  had 
from  heaven  ;  the  design  and  import  of  that  baptism  were  from 
heaven,  new  and  specially  given  to  John.  But  the  act  was  not 
then  first  practised.  A  new  use  was  made  of  an  old  thing.  The 
design,  and  import,  and  use,  were  the  substance  of  the  baptism ;  the 
mode  was  a  trifle.  The  mind  of  our  Saviour,  as  well  as  the  minds 
of  his  hearers,  fastened  upon  these — the  design,  meaning,  and  use 
of  the  baptism, — when  he  asked,  "  The  baptism  of  John,  was  it 
from  Heaven,  or  of  men  ?" 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  47 

sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the 

fleshy  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ purge 

your  conscience  /"  He  specifies  here  what  ''  washivys^^ 
(baptisms),  or  purifyings^  he  speaks  of;  and  the  only 
ones  which  he  specifies,  are  those  performed  with 
"  bloodp  and  with  the  ''  ashes  of  a  heifer  sprinkling 
the  unclean."  The  persons  and  things  purified  w^ere 
never  immersed  in  blood,  they  were  sprinkled;  and  these 
sprinklings  Paul  here  calls  baptisms.  It  should  be  no- 
ticed too  that  as  the  sprirMing  of  the  blood  of  bulls,  and 
of  the  ashes  of  a  heifer,  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the 
"  ^fc«/t,"  so  the  application  of  the  '''•blood  of  Christ.^''''  which 
purgeth  "  the  conscience.^''''  is  repeatedly  called  the 
*'  sprinkling"  (never  the  immersion)  "  of  the  blood  of 
Christ:'' 

The  *'  purifying  of  the  flesh"  by  the  ashes  of  a 
heifer,  to  which  Paul  here  refers,  is  prescribed  in  Num- 
bers xix.  17,  IS.  "  And  for  an  unclean  person,  they  shall 
take  of  the  ashes  of  the  burnt  heifer  oi  purification  for  sin, 
and  running  water  shall  be  put  thereto  in  a  vessel,  and  a 
clean  person  shall  sprinkle  it  upon  the  tent,  and  upon  all 
the  vessels,  and  upon  the  persons  that  were  there,  and 
upon  him  that  touched  a  bone,  or  one  slain,  or  one  dead, 
or  a  grave." 

It  is  added,  that  on  the  seventh  day  "1  e  shall  bathe 
himself;^''  and  our  Baptist  brethren  are  fond  of  saying 
that  the  "  Baptism  refers  to  the  bathing."  I  am  glad  of 
the  objection,  because  it  distinctly  recognizes  the  fact 
that  Paul  refers  to  these  purifyings  as  among  his  "  divers 
BAPTISMS."  But  the  objection  is  idle  ;  as  Paul  does  not 
specify  the  bathing  as  any  part  of  what  he  means  ;  but  he 
does   specify  the  "  sprinkling.''^     He  does  not  say  that 


48  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

the  bathing^-  "  sanctifieth  to  the  purifying  of  the  flesh," 
but  he  says  it  is  "  the  blood  of  bulls  and  goats,  and  the 
ashes  of  the  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  that  sancti- 
fieth." It  is  what  is  done  by  another  hand  (for  a  "  clean 
person''^  must  sprinkle  the  unclean),  on  which  Paul's 
mind  fastens  as  the  baptism ;  and   he  does  not  deem  it 

*  If  he  did,  the  word  bathing  would  not  necessarily  imply  an 
immersion.     Bathing  here  is  synonymous  with  washing. 

By  a  course  of  argument  entirely  different  from  that  which  I 
have  employed,  President  Beecher  has  shown,  I  tliink  beyond  dis- 
pute, that  these  "  Baptisms"  refer  to  things  which  certainly  were 
not  immersions.  The  substance  of  his  argument  is  this  :  1.  "  The 
whole  passage  relates  to  the  effects  of  the  Mosaic  ritual  entirely 
on  persons,  and  not  on  things."  2.  "  The  '  Baptisms'  are  spoken  of 
as  ENJOINED,  as  well  as  other  rites.     But  of  persons,  no  iivimer- 

SIONS    AT    ALL     ARE    ENJOINED     UNDER    THE    MoSAIC    RITUAL." 

"  No  washing  of  persons  is  ever  enjoined"  by  the  word  tubal,  to 
immerse,  even  in  a  single  instance,  nor  by  any  word  that  denotes 
immersion — but,  as  I  think,  v-'ithout  exception,  by  the  word 
Rahhats,  which  denotes  to  ivash,  without  any  reference  to  mode." 
"  Those  who  read  the  English  version  might  suppose  that,  where 
the  direction  to  bathe  occurs,  immersion  is  enjoined  ;  but  in  every 
such  case  the  original  is  only  to  wash."  Mr.  Beecher  does  not 
deem  it  necessary  to  deny  that  the  bathing  might  sometimes  have 
been  done  by  immersion ;  but  arfirms  that  immersion  could  not 
be  deemed  necessary  from  anything  expressed  or  implied  in  the 
command.  The  command  being  to  wash,  or  purify — the  mode  was 
not  a  matter  of  command. 

Even  immersion  would  be  no  compliance  with  the  command, 
save  only  as  it  was  a  mode  of  washing.  The  word  used  in  the 
command,  is  the  same  as  that  used  in  Gen.  xviii.  4,  "  Let  a  little 
water,  I  pray  you,  be  fetched  and  wash  your  feet;"  Gen.  xliii.. 
31,  ''And  he  washed  his  face  and  went  out."  So  Levit.  xiv.  9, 
"  Also,  he  shall  loash  his  flesh  in  water,  and  he  shall  be  clean." 

President  Beecher  here  meets  the  Baptists  on  their  own  ground, 
and  shows  that,  if  Paul  refers  to  these  bathings  when  he  speaks  of 
"  Baptisms,"  even  then  he  cannot  mean  "  immersions^ 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  49 

necessary  to  specify  anything  else.  And  this  application 
of  bloody  which  was  made  by  s/jn/zA/m^,  and  the  ashes  of 
a  heifer  sprinkling  the  unclean,  Paul  calls  a  baptism. 

The  current  of  his  discourse  leads  him  on  to  speak  of 
another  of  the  "  divers  baptisms,"  in  ver.  15,  and  onward. 
Having  made  a  comparison  between  the  "  purifying  of 
theflesh^^  by  the  sprinkling  of  blood,  and  of  the  ashes  of 
a  heifer,  and  the  '''■purging  of  the  conscience''^  by  the 
*'  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ,"  he  runs  out  the 
same  parallel  between  the  ritual  of  establishing  the  first 
testament  under  Moses,  and  the  ritual  of  establishing  the 
second  under  Christ.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  the 
same  form  of  ritual  is  still  kept  up  ;  it  is  still  a  sprinkling, 
and  not  an  immersion.  "  For  when  Moses  had  spoken 
every  precept  to  all  the  people,  according  to  the  law,  he 
took  of  the  blood  of  calves  and  of  goats,  with  w^ater,  and 
scarlet  wool,  and  hj^ssop,  and  sprinkled  the  book  and  all 
the  people.  Moreover,  he  sprinkled  likewise  with  blood 
both  the  tabernacle  and  all  the  vessels  of  the  ministry." 
The  argument  is,  that  Christ,  in  ratifying  the  new  cove- 
nant, must  ratify  it  with  his  own  blood  ;  and  the  only 
modal  application  of  this  blood  spoken  of  even  in  figure, 
is  the  "  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ."  The  current 
of  his  discourse,  and  the  contrast  which  runs  throughout 
his  argunient,  shows  that  the  "  divers  baptisms'^''  are  still 
referred  to  in  these  purifyings  so  repeatedly  described 
under  the  mode  of  sprinkling. 

He  speaks  of  "  divers  baptisms."  Another  of  these  is 
mentioned  in  Numb.  viii.  7  :  "  And  this  shalt  thou  do 
unto  them  to  cleanse  them"  (viz.  the  Levites,  to  prepare 
them  to  enter  upon  the  functions  of  their  office),  "  sprinkle 
water  of  purifying  upon  them,  and  let  them  shave  all 
3 


50  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

their  flesh,  and  let  them  wash  their  clothes,  and  so  make 
themselves  clean."  Note  here,  that  no  man  inducts 
himself  into  the  priesthood,  and  all  that  was  done  to  the 
Levite  by  another'' s  hand  was  the  *'  sprinkling.''''  The 
Leper  was  in  like  manner  to  be  cleansed  by  sprinkling^ 
Lev.  xiv.  9.  And  so  pre-eminently  is  the  sprinkling 
considered  as  the  important  element  in  the  cleansing, 
that  this  alone  is  the  outward  part  of  the  ritual  pitched 
upon  to  designate  the  purifying  with  which  Christ  wash- 
es away  the  sins,  and  cleanses  away  the  pollution  of  the 
soul.  Thus,  Isaiah  lii.  15,  "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations."  Heb.  xii.  24,  "And  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
Christ."  1  Pet.  i.  2,  "And  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
Christ."  You  never  read  of  his  "  Immersing  many  na- 
tions," nor  of  the  "  Immersion  of  the  blood  of  Christ ;" 
no,  never,  in  the  word  of  God. 

But  the  IMPORT  of  baptism  by  water  is  this  same  cleans- 
ing away  of  sin  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  The  washing 
away  of  sin  is  effected — not  by  the  water — but  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  liaptism  by  water  signifies  this  wash- 
ing away  of  sins.  Thus,  "  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  aivay  thy  5?'h.s."*  Now  if  the  application  of  the  sign 
is  to  resemble  the  application  of  the  thiiig  which  per- 
forms the  real  cleansing,  and  to  resemble  it  even  in  figure  ; 
if  the  type  is  to  resemble  the  antitype  ;  the  shadow  the 
substance ;  then  as  it  is  the  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of 
Christ  that  does  the  cleansing,  surely  it  should  be  the 
sprinkling   of  the  water   in   baptism  that   signifies  the 

*  There  is  a  curious  mode  of  setting  aside  this  argument,  by 
considering  baptism  as  designed  to  represent  the  bunal  and  resur- 
rertion  of  Christ !  The  word  of  God  gives  quite  another  view  of 
the  import  of  baptism  ;  see  Acts  ii.  38,  and  xxii.  16. 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING. 


51 


cleansing  ;  immersion  would  spoil  the  resemblance,  and 
mar  the  significance  of  the  sign. 

But  not  to  come  at  the  conclusion  too  soon,  let  us  hold 
here  upon  the  testimony  of  the  facts  so  far  considered. 
We  have  here,  then,  "  divers  baptisms"  'perjormtd  hy 

SPRINKLING. 

Turn  now  to  Mark  vii.  3,  4 — "  For  the  Pharisees,  and 
all  the  JewSj  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not ; 
holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders.  And  when  they 
come  from  the  market,*  except  they  wash,  they  eat  not ; 
and  many  other  things  there  be  which  they  have  receiv- 
ed to  hold,  as  the  washing  of  cups,  and  pots,  and  brazen 
vessels,  and  tables." 

The  words  "  was/i,"  and  '•^  icashing'^''  are,  in  the  origi- 
aal  {S (iTcx icf ojvT a C)^  except  they  have  baptized  them- 
selves ;  and  (Sumiauovg^^  "  Baptisms." 

See  how  this  subject  is  introduced.  "  And  when  they 
saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat  bread  with  defiled  (that  is 
to  say,  with  unwasheii)  hands,  they  found  fault."  Then 
follows  the  explanation  :  ^'  For  the  Pharisees,  and  all  the 
Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft,  eat  not  ;  and 
when  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  wash, 
they  eat  not."  See  Matt.  xv.  2—"  Then  the  Pharisees 
and  Scribes  asked  him.  Why  walk  not  thy  disciples  ac- 
cording to   the   tradition   of  the  elders,t  but  eat   bread 

*  Rosenmiiller  says,  "  The  sense  is,  '  when  they  come  from  the 
market  (i.  e.  any  public  place),  they  do  not  take  their  food  except 
t}iey  wash  their  hands.''  Ayooa  (the  market)  signifies  not  only  a  con- 
course of  men,  or  place  of  public  resort,  in  which  provisions  are 
sold,  and  in  which  trials  are  held,  but  all  similar  public  places. 
Ay)f'i — public  places,  opposed  to  private  dwellings." 

t  "  The  rule  of  the  rabbins  was,  that  if  they  washed  their  hands 
well  in  the  morning  the  first  thing  they  did,  it  would  serve  for 


52  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

with  unwashen  hands  V  Compare  this  with  Luke  xi.  38. 
A  pharisee  marvelled  that  the  Lord  Jesus  "  had  not  first 
ivashed  before  dinner"  (original,  edwrniadri)  ;  that  "  he 
had  not  first  been  baptized  before  dinner."  The  fault 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  and  of  the  disciples,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Jews,  was,  that  they  had  not  first  been  baptized  (or  bap- 
tized themselves)  before  eating ;  i.  e.,  they  had  eaten  with 
UNWASHEN  HANDS.  The  Washing  of  the  hands,  there- 
fore, was  a  baptism ;  and,  as  the  form  of  the  original 
language,  as  well  as  our  translation,  shows,  a  baptism 
of  the  PERSONS,  not  simply  of  the  hands;  i.  e.,  they  (the 
persons)  were  baptized  when  their  hands  had  been  wash- 
ed for  a  ceremonial  purifying. 

There  is  this  further  peculiarity  about  it ;  their  hands 
were  not  commonly  dipped  or  immersed^  but  washed  in 
running  water,  as  streaming  from  a  pitcher  or  from  a 
watering  pot.^ 

all  CiVLj.  provided  they  kept  alone;  but  if  they  went  into  company^  they 
must  not,  at  their  return,  either  eat  or  pray,  till  they  had  washed 
their  hands.'' — Matthew  Henry^  on  Mark  vii.  4. 

*.  A-  very  worthy  minister  of  the  Episcopal  church,  who  had 
travelled  much,  and  spent  considerable  time  in  the  East  (formerly 
Rector  of  St.  Paul's  Church  in  this  place),  assured  me  that  the 
practice  is  continued  in  the  Eastern  world  to  this  day.  Before 
meals,  a  servant  comes  round  with  a  pitcher,  ?Lnd  pours  wf.ter  on 
the  hands  of  those  about  to  eat,  or  they  are  otherwise  eleansed 
with  running  or  streaming  water.  He  said,  as  often  as  he  saw  it 
done,  it  brought  to  his  mind  the  passage  in  2  Kings  iii.  11. 
"Here  is  Elisha,  the  son  of  Shaphat,  who  poured  tvater  on  the 
hands  of  Elijah,"  i.  e.  who  was  servant  to  him  :  the  very  common 
duty  of  a  servant  is  used  as  an  appellation  to  designate  the  relation 
of  a  servant. 

The  custom  of  washing  the  hands  before  eating,  as  it  still  pre- 
vails in  the  East,  was  this :  "  When  they  wash,  the  water  is  poured 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  53 

I  am  aware  that  attempts  have  been  made  to  set  aside 
the  force  of  these  passages,  in  Mark  vii.  and  Luke  xi. 
But  these  attempts  have  done  no  more  than  to  demon- 
strate the  strength  of  our  position.  There  are  only  two 
possible  grounds  of  resisting  the  conclusion.  One  of 
which  is,  that  the  baptism  is  predicated  of  the  hands^  as 
though  the  hands  were  immersed  ;  and  the  other,  that 
while  the  Jews  on  many  occasions  washed  their  hands, 
yet  as  often  as  they  came  from  the  market^  they  immersed 
their  whole  bodies.  As  was  noticed  in  the  previous  dis- 
course, Dr.  Campbell  takes  the  first  ground,  and  Mr. 
Carson  the  second.  Campbell,  appearing  to  know  full 
well  the  absurdity  of  supposing  that  "  all  the  Jews'"'  al- 
ways "  immersed"  themselves  as  often  as  they  came 
from  the  market  before  eating,  referred  the  baptism  to 
^.he  hands  J  and  maintained  an  immersion^  but  an  immersion 
of  the  hands  only.  Carson  replies,  that  he  considers 
Campbell's  view  of  the  matter  as  "nothing  but  an  in- 
genious device,  without  any  authority  from  the  practice 
of  the  language."  Such  it  most  undoubtedly  is.  No 
scholar  could  ever  have  been  betrayed  into  such  a  "  de- 
vice," save  from  the  hard  necessity  of  making  out  an 

from  a  vase  upon  the  hands  over  a  basin — they  never  make  use  of  a 
basin  or  a  tub  to  wash  in,  as  is  the  practice  elsewhere.'"  { Oscanyan, 
in  Kurtz,  p.  179. ) 

In  John  ii.  6,  &c.,  where  there  were  set  six  water-pots  of  stone, 
after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the  Jews  : — at  the  time  of  the 
middle  of  the  feast  these  ^ater-pots  appear  to  have  been  empty 
The  purifying  (which  Mark  and  Luke  call  a  baptizing)  had  been 
performed,  not  by  the  guests  immersing  themselves  or  dipping 
their  hands  in  the  water-pots,  but  by  "  drawing  out,"  and  probably 
by  carrying  and  pouring  the  water  on  the  hands.  If  this  be  so, 
then  our  Baptist  brethren  are  left  destitute  of  that  last,  but  unavail- 
ing refuge,  the  "  dipping  of  the  hands." 


54  LAW     OF     BAPTISM. 

"  immersion''''  in  this  case,  by  some  means  or  other.  Car- 
son, on  the  other  hand,  maintains  that  we  are  taught 
here,  that  "  all  the  Jews,"  whenever  they  have  been  at 
the  market,  never  eat  except  they  have  immersed  the  lohole 
body.  He  says  (p.  68),  "  It  ought  to  have  been  trans- 
lated '  except  they  dip  themselves  they  eat  not.' " 
What  does  he  bring  to  prove  it?  The  word  baptize^ 
baptize  means  immerse;  therefore  they  were  immersed, 
the  Holy  Spirit  being  witness !  But  the  very  question  is, 
whether  baptize  means  immerse.  The  Holy  Spirit  has 
said-  they  were  baptized^  and  has  so  explained  it  as  to 
leave  us  to  understand  that  they  were  baptized  (ceremo- 
nially purified)  by  washing  their  hands.  The  Holy  Spirit 
has  said  that  they  were  baptized,  but  the  Spirit  has  not 
told  us  that  by  baptize  he  means  immerse.  What  was 
ihe  fact  ?  Pid  the  Jews  always  immerse  themselves  as 
often  as  they  came  from  the  market  ?*  To  me  it  appears 
clear  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  explained  what  the  fact 
was  j  they  washed  their  hands.  And  what  does  Mr.  Car- 
son bring  to  show  that  they  always  immersed  their  whole 
bodies  as  often  as  they  came  from  the  market }  Nothing 
but  this  idle  begging  of  the  question  concerning  the  word 
baptize.  There  is  not  a  scrap  of  evidence  in  anything 
else  in  the  wide  world  to  show  it.|     The  manners  and 

*  Kuinoel  declares  it  to  be  improbable,  and  maintains  that  it 
cannot  be  proved  by  sufficient  arguments  that  they  had  such  a 
custom. 

t  "  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Jews  washed  their  whole 
bodies  every  time  they  came  from  the  market." — Barnes.  ITie 
attempt  of  "  Transmontanus,"  p.  107,  fee,  to  substantiate  such  a 
custom,morethoroughly  convinces  me  of  the  entire  absence  of  all 
proof  or  trace  of  such  a  custom.  His  Jewish  Rabbi  Maimonides, 
on  the  requisitions  of  the  law,  is  too  late  by  eleven  centuries  ;  and 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING. 


55 


customs  of  the  Jews  were  well  known.  They  have 
been  well  known  since  throughout  the  four  quarters  of 
ihe  globe,  wherever  their  nation  has  been  scattered  and 
peeled  ;  the  washing  of  the  hands  still  exists  :  but  nothing 
— no  nothing  from  all  history  has  been  adduced  to  show 
that  they  observe,  or  ever  have  observed  the  custom 
which  Mr.  Carson  here  attributes  to  them.  Nothing — 
no,  nothing,  but  this  idle  begging  of  the  question  has  been 
alleged  and  substantiated,  or  can  be.  But  all  this  mat- 
ters nothing  to  Mr.  Carson  !  High,  low,  rich,  poor  ;  at 
home  and  abroad  ;  winter  or  summer  ;  all  are  conveni- 
ently furnished  with  balhs^  or  with  soniething  else,  where 
they  may  conveniently  immerse  themselves  before  eating, 
as  often  as  they  have  been  at  the  market !  It  matters 
nothing  that  these  things  were  never  heard  of;  "  baptize 
means  immerse,"  and  therefore  it  must  be  so.  It  matters 
not,  that  "  according  to  the  manner  of  purifying  of  the 
Jeics^''''  there  were  set,  not  "  baths,'*''  but  "  water  pots  ;" 
and  that  those  used  at  the  marriage  supper  in  Cana, 
when  they  would  seem  to  need  *'  much  water"  if  ever, 
contained  about "  two  or  three  firkins  a-piccey  (somewhat 
over  half  a  barrel,  according  to  the  largest  computation), 
large  enough,  it  should  seem,  to  purify  a  whole  company 

his  statement  bears  in  itself  marks  of  the  superstitious  corruptions 
of  later  times.  Besides,  Maimonides  himself,  with  regard  to  the 
custom  referred  to  in  Mark  vii.  4,  bears  testimony  that  the  baptizing 
was  a  washing  of  the  hands.  "  A  man  shall  wash  his  hands  in 
the  morning,  so  that  it  shall  suffice  him  for  the  whole  day,  and  he 
shall  not  wash  his  hands  as  oft  as  he  eats,  which  holds  if  he  do 
do  not"  ....'•  go  abroad,  or  meddle  with  business,  or  go  to  the 
market,  &c  ,  but  if  he  do  so,  he  is  bound  to  wash  his  hands  as  oft 
as  there  is  need  of  washing"  (in  Scott's  Commentary).  The  other 
evidences  of  Transmontanus  do  not  reach  the  case. 


56  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

of  guestSj  but  of  questionable  capacity  for  a  single  im- 
mersion. No;  no  matter  for  difficulties.  No,  says 
Carson,  "  Even  an  inexplicable  difficulty  would  not  affect 
the  certainty  of  my  conclusions."  But  enough  ;  I  think 
you  will  conclude  with  me,  that  here  is  sufficient  proof, 
that  Mark,  speaking  as  he  was  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
teaches  us  that  the  word  "  baptism''''  was  used  to  denote 
(among  other  things)  a  ritual  washing  of  the  hands.  Of 
course,  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body  is  in  no  way 
essential  to  a  baptism. 

The  mutual  contradictions  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  in 
the  evasions  which  they  attempt  on  this  passage  in  Mark 
vii.  3,  4,  only  show  the  absolute  certainty  that  baptism 
here  means  no  immersion.  While  Carson  says,  p.  307, 
"  Either  the  persons  referred  to  were  immersed  on  the 
occasions  referred  to,  or  the  inspired  writer  testifies  a 
falsehood,"  Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  158,  ''  77ze?e  is  not 
sufficient  ground  for  believing  that  the  Jews  immersed  their 
whole  bi,dy  when  returning  from  the  market.''''  With  him 
agrees  Professor  Ripley,  who  says,  "  In  the  absence  of 
clear  satisfying  proof,  it  is  not  becoming  to  make  positive 
assertions."  Mr.  Woolsey*  endeavors  to  show  that,  on 
the  occasion  referred  to,  they  only  immersed  their  hands. 
But  the  sacred  record  says,  "  Except  they  (^(xaTiaavxai) 
baptize  themsehesV  it  mentions  no  part  of  the  body, 
but  refers  the  baptism  to  the  person,  as  absolutely  as  in 
any  case  whatever.  To  insert  the  word  hands  here  is  to 
alter  the  diction,  and  pervert  the  meaning  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.  And  so  Carson  argues  ;  for,  p.  68,  he  says, 
^^  When  no  part  is  mentioned  or  excepted  the  whole  body 
is  always  meant." 

*  The  generality  of  the  Baptist  writers  do  the  same. 


SPRINKLING    AND    POURING.  57 

In  making  some  evasion,  however,  Baptist  authors 
generally  agree.  They  affirm  that  while,  on  ordinary 
occasions,  "  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they 
wash  t.heir  hands  oft,  eat  not,'*  yet  upon  coming  from  the 
market^  they  eat  not  except  they  immerse  ;  i.  e.,  as  some 
say,  immerse  themselves^  or  others,  their  hands.  And 
they  say  that  if  this  distinction  is  not  made  in  the  two 
cases  mentioned  in  Mark  vii.  4,  the  second  is  a  mere 
stupid  tautology.* 

The  force  of  this  is,  that  on  the  especial  occasion  of 
coming  from  the  market  (ayoQu;)^  they  perform  a  special 
and  extraordinary  ablution,  viz.,  an  immersion.^  while  on 
other  occasions  they  simply  wash  their  hands.  The  very 
connection  of  the  passage  refutes  this  distinction.  Where 
had  Jesus  and  his  disciples  been,  when  the  Jews  com- 
plained that  his  disciples  eat  with  unwashen  hands  .'* 
Turn  to  the  verse  preceding  this  seventh  chapter,  and  you 
will  see.  They  had  been  in  the  "  villages,"  "  city," 
"  country,"  and  "  streets.'^''  But  the  word  "  streets''^  is 
in  the  original  ayoquig  (^agorais),  precisely  the  word 
rendered  in  vii.  4,  market.  Jesus  and  his  disciples  then 
had  come  from  the  markets  ;  and  the  Pharisees  wondered 
that  they  eat  bread  with  defiled  (that  is  to  say  with  un- 
washen) hands.     Then  follows  the  explanation  :  and  it 

*  Mr.  Gale  invented  a  curious  way  of  getting  over  this  diffi- 
culty. An  immersion  he  was  determined  to  have,  for  here  was  a 
baptizing.  But  since  it  was  incredible  that  they  always  immersed 
themselves,  he  held  that  they  immersed  their  pro^nsions,  or  what- 
ever they  brought  from  the  market.  This  is  now  given  up,  and 
a  dipping  (in  distinction  from  tvashing)  of  the  hands  is  substituted  ; 
but  with  no  more  reason  or  authority  than  for  the  invention  of 
Mr.  Gale. 

3* 


58  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

is  making  no  tautology  to  understand  the  last  clause  as  a 
specific  example  (applicable  to  the  case  in  hand)  of  the 
general  custom  mentioned  in  the  first ;  '■'■  For  the  Phari- 
sees, and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  wash  their  hands  oft, 
eat  not''  (here  is  the  general  custom,  they  wash  their 
hands  "  oft ;"  then  follows  the  particular  instance,  appli- 
cable to  the  case  in  hand) ;  "  And  when  they  come  from 
the  market^  except  they  wash  {baptize  themselves)^  they 
eat  not."  They  had  just  come  from  the  market-places 
{ayoqaig)  ;  and  the  wonder  was  that  they  did  not  baptize 
themseh^es :  that  is,  that  they  eat  bread  with  unwashen 
hands.  Such  is  the  explanation  which  the  Scripture 
gives  of  the  sense  in  which  the  Scripture  uses  the  word 
"  baptize." 

This  view  is  still  further  corroborated  by  the  passage 
in  Luke  xi.  38  :  Jesus  had  been  working  miracles,  and 
engaged  in  giving  continued  instructions.  Nothing  is 
said  to  shovv  that  it  was  in  a  market ;  though,  attracted 
by  his  instructions,  a  crowd  had  gathered  round  him. 
*'  And  as  he  spake,  a  certain  Pharisee  besought  him  to 
dine  with  him  ;  and  he  went  in,  and  sat  down  to  meat. 
And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he  marvelled  that  he  had 
not  first  washed  before  dinner"  (in  the  original,  s^amiadrj^ 
that  he  had  not  been  baptized).  Did  the  Pharisee 
wonder  that  Jesus  had  not  first  immersed  his  whole  body, 
before  eating  an  ordinary  meal  ?  Did  the  Pharisee  im- 
merse himself  1  Did  he  offer  to  lead  Jesus  to  a  bath  ? 
VYas  there  any  retiring  and  unrobing  for  an  immersion  } 
Or  must  we  not  suppose,  rather,  that  the  Pharisee  wash- 
ed his  own  hands  on  the  spot,  from  the  use  of  some 
"  water-pot,"  "  after  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of  the 
Jews ;"    and     wondered    that     Jesus    (as   had    been 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  59 

complained     of    his     disciples)    eat    with    "  unwashen 
hands  ?"* 

One  thing  further  is  to  be  observed  here.  The  v/ord 
washed  (ebaptisthe)^  in  Luke  xi.  38,  is,  letter  for  letter, 
in  all  respects  precisely  the  same,  as  that  used  in  Mark 
L  9,  "  Jesus"  {ehaplisthe)  "  was  baptized  of  John  in 
Jordan."  In  I^uke  xi.  38,  the-  Holy  Ghost  affirms  the 
baptism  of  the  person  as  fully,  as  absolutely,  as  unequi- 
vocally as  he  does  when  he  says  Jesus  was  baptized  of 
John  in  Jordan.  Yet  the  baptism  in  Luke  xi.  38,  was 
no  immersion,  but  a  simple  ablution  of  the  hands,  by 
pourii.g,  or  allowing  water  to  run  over  them.  Nay,  the 
Holy  Ghost  uses  in  this  case  the  selfsame  word,  without 
the  alteration  of  a  single  letter,  without  a  syllable  of  ex- 
planation, with  no  circumstance  to  modify  or  diminish 
the  full  meaning  of  the  word  baptize.  How  then  can  it 
be  pretended  from  the  meaning  of  the  word  alone,  that 
Jesus  was  immersed  of  John  in  Jordan  }  Why  could  not 
the  baptism  in  this  case  be  performed  by  pouring  water 
on  him,  as  well  as  in  the  other  %  With  this  explicit  and 
unequivocal  testimony  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  to  the  com- 
mon meaning  of  "  baptize"  in  the  sacred  writings,  how 
can  our  Baptist  brethren  pretend,  that  when  our  Saviour 
commands  us  to  be  baptized,  he  commands  us  to  be 

#  Nor  is  the  common  evasion  of  our  Baptist  brethren^  concern- 
ing dipping  the  hands,  possible  here.  The  word  ehaptisthc  is  in  the 
passive  voice,  and  does  not  admit  the  word  hands  to  be  understood 
as  its  object.  Nor  are  we  allowed  to  supply  it  by  synecdoche ; 
for  where  an  author  omits  so  to  limit  his  meaning  to  a  part,  we 
have  no  authority  to  alter  his  meaning  by  supplying  it.  The 
word  hands  is  not  in  this  passage,  or  near  it.  The  sacred  writer 
refers  absolutely  to  the  baptism  of  the  person. 


60  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

immersed,  without  being  guilty  of  altering  the  command 
of  Christ,  and  adding  to  the  word  of  God  ? 

To  my  mind,  here  is,  so  far,  demonstration — proof 
which  puts  it  beyond  my  power  to  doubt, — that  sprink- 
ling and  pouring  are  scriptural  modes  of  baptism. 
Whether  the  mode  of  immersion  has  a  scriptural  recog- 
nition is  a  matter  that  is  yet  to  appear.  It  is  certain, 
without  going  farther,  that  immersion  cannot  be  essen- 
tial TO   BAPTISM. 

Let  us  come  now  to  the  use  of  the  word  "  baptize"  with 
reference  to  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Jesus  said, 
Acts  i.  3,  "  John  truly  baptized  with  w^ater,  but  ye  shall 
be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  not  many  days  hence." 
I  will  not  stop  to  show  how  grossly  this  w^ould  sound  to 
alter  it,  according  to  the  proposal  of  our  Baptist  brethren, 
so  as  to  read,  "  But  ye  shall  be  immersed y^'iih  (or  in)  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

This  baptism  was  accomplished  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost. Peter  said  of  it,  "  This  is  that  which  was  spoken 
by  the  prophet  Joel ;  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the 
last  days, — I  will  pour  out  my  spirit  upon  all  flesh." — 
"  He  (Jesus)  hath  shed  forth  this  ;"  so,  Acts  xi.  15,  16, 
"  And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost /c//  on  them, 
as  on  us  at  the  beginning.  Then  remembered  I  the  word 
of  the  Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with 
water y  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost." 
The  mode  of  the  baptism  here  spoken  of,  is  under  the  fig- 
ure oi  pouring  and  shedding  forth.  The  gift  of  the  Spirit  is 
never  spoken  of  under  the  figure  of  immersion,  but  as  a 
pouring,  shedding  forth,  sprinkling,  coming  down  like 
rain.  Thus,  Isaiah  xliv.  3,  "  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit 
upon  thy  seed."     Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  26,  "  Then  will  I 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  61 

sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  :  a 
new  heart  also  will  I  give  you."  Compare  Tit.  iii.  5,  6, 
"  By  the  washing  of  regeneration,  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  which  is  shed  on  us  abundantly;"  Ps.  xlii.  6, 
^'  He  shall  come  down  upon  the  mown  grass  as  showers 
that  water  the  earth  ;"  Isaiah  Iii.  15,  "  So  shall  he 
sprinkle  many  nations." 

It  has  been  argued  that  the  baptizing  was  still  by  im~ 
mersi§n,  as  the  Spirit  was  shed  down  "  ahundanthj^''''  and 
^^  filled  the  room.''''  The  Scripture  says, ''  the  sound''''  fill- 
ed the  room.  It  is  not  so  gross  as  to  speak  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  filling  a  room  like  a  material  substance,  and  thus 
immersing  people.  Besides,  though  you  might  cover  peo- 
ple by  pouring  water  on  them,  provided  they  were  en- 
closed in  a  room  or  vessel,  you  could  not  be  said  to  ''  dip" 
or  "  plunge"  them  in  so  doing  ;  but  immersion  (and  it  is 
contended  that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  be 
called  the  '■'■  immers'wn'''  of  the  Holy  Ghost),  immersion 
has  the  act  of  dipping  entering  necessarily  into  its  idea,  as 
W€ll  as  the  act  of  covering.  Moreover,  all  converted 
persons  are  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Paul  says,  1 
Cor.  xii.  13,  "  For  hy  one  spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into 
one  body,  whether  we  be  Jew  or  Gentile,  bond  or  free." 
But  who  will  pretend  that  all  converted  persons  are 
"immersed"  into  the  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  man- 
ner, in  which  (it  is  argued)  the  apostles  were  immersed 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  by  pouring  the  Spirit  upon  them 
till  'it  filled  the  room.,  and  so  immersed  them  % 

Here  I  rest  under  this  topic.  The  mode  of  baptism  in 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  that  mode  is  indicated 
by  the  uniform  figure,  is  pouring.,  shedding  forthy  sprink- 
ling, coming  down  like  rain,  or  like  shower Sy  falling  upon. 


62  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

I  cannot  but  wonder  that  those  who  insist  so  much  upon 
the  words,  "  buried  with  him  in  bapHsm,^^  are  not  able  to 
see  in  these  also  an  equal  authority  for  proper  modes  of 
baptism ;  even  granting  (what  I  do  not  grant)  that  their 
favorite  phrase  has  some  reference  to  a  mode  of  bap- 
tism. 

Having  traced  the  meaning  of  the  w^ord  "  baptize"  so 
far  in  the  Scriptures,  turn  to  ihe  early  Christian  Fathers, 
whose  views  of  what  is  essential  to  baptism  were  ijiould- 
ed  on  the  meaning  of  the  term  common  among  Christians 
and  Jews.  The  following  examples,  with  several  others, 
are  adduced  by  Dr.  Pond*  ''Tertullian  speaks  of 
baptism  being  administered  by  sprinkling.  '  Who  will 
accommodate  you,  a  man  so  little  to  be  trusted  (asper- 
ginem  unam  aquse)  with  one  sprinkling  of  water  ? ' 

"  Origen  represents  the  wood  on  the  altar,  over  which 
water  was  poured  at  the  command  of  Elijah  (1  Kings 
xviii.  33,)  as  having  been  baptized. 

^'  Lactantius  says  that  Christ  received  baptism,  *  that 
he  might  save  the  Gentiles  by  baptism,^  that  is  (purifici 
roris  perfusione)  by  the  distilling  of  the  purifying 
dew. 

"  Cyprian,  Jerome,  and  some  others  of  the  Fathers, 
understood  the  prediction,  '  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you,'  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25,  as  having  reference  to  wa- 
ter baptism. 

"  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  speaking  of  a  backslider, 
whom  John  was  the  means  of  reclaiming,  says, '  He  was 
baptized  a  second  time  with  tears. "* 

"  Athanasius  reckons  up  eight  several  ^  baptisms,' 
and  the  sixth  in  his  enumeration  is  that  '  of  tears.  "^ 

*  See  pp.  33,  34,  of  his  excellent  work  on  Baptism. 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  63 

"  Gregory  Nazianzen  says,  *I  know  of  a  fourth  bap- 
tism, that  by  martyrdom  and  blood;  and  I  know  of  a 
fifth,  that  of  tear^.''  The  baptism  of  tears  and  blood  was 
a  favorite  phraseology  with  the  early  Christians." 

Now  in  all  these  baptisms,  of  the  "wood  and  the  altar," 
of  "  tearsy^^  and  "  blood,''''  the  idea  of  "  dipping,"  "  plung- 
ing," "  burying,"  or  "  immersing,"  is  excluded.  "  Wet," 
"  washed,"  >'  sprinkled,"  "  poured  upon,"  those  spoken 
of  here  as  baptized  might  be ;  but  whether  men  may 
be  dipped  or  immersed  in  their  own  tears  or  blood,  admits 
of  a  question.  If  it  be  said  that  these  representations  are 
figurative,  certainly  there  is  no  immersion  about  them, 
even  in  figure. 

The  conclusion  is,  that  the  early  fathers,  as  well  as  the 
Apostles,  understood  the  word  "  baptize''''  in  quite 
another  sense  than  that  of  immerse.  Their  idea  of  bap- 
tism was  that  of  a  purifying  (or  consecrating)  by  sprink- 
ling or  pouring,  and  these  are  the  modes  under  which  is 
constantly  represented  the  purifying  (the  baptism)  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

I  have  now  done  with  the  argument  under  the  first 
head,  and  we  are  ready  for  the  ({xxesiiou^W hat  would  the 
immediate  disciples  of  our  Lord  under  stand  from  the  simple 
face  of  the  command  baptize  ?  Would  they  consider 
immersion  as  essential  }  I  think  the  conclusion  is  inevi- 
table ;  IT  IS  impossible.  Sprinkling  and  pouring  they 
would  inevitably  consider  lawful  and  proper  modes  ;  and 
SO  far,  it  has  not  appeared  that  they  have  any  notion  of 
immersing  at  all  :  or  any  authority  for  it,  if  direct  au- 
thority be  sought  for  a  specific  mode. 

I  have  done  with  the  argument  from  the  meaning  of 
the  word,  and  proceed  to  the  second  inquiry. 


64  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

2.  ''  Is  there  satisfactory  evidence  thai  the  disciples  of 
Christ  always  administered  baptism  by  immersion  ?  I  say 
always;  for  if  they  did  not  always  do  so  immersion  can- 
not be  essential,  even  though  it  could  be  proved  (which 
it  cannot  be)  that  immersion  was  the  common  mode. 

John  w^as  baptizing  in  Enon,  "  because  there  was  much 
water  there.''''  It  is  contended  that  the  ''  much  water'''' 
could  be  needed  only  for  immersion,  and  that  therefore 
John  baptized  by  immersion. 

It  is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  they  w^ho  print  this  in 
capitals  to  prove  that  John  baptized  by  immersion,  pre- 
sently find  water  enough  in  Jerusalem  to  baptize  three 
thousand  in  a  small  part  of  one  day.  They  are  fond  of 
asking,  "  Why  did  he  go  to  the  river  1"  They  dwell 
much  upon  "  Following  the  Saviour  down  the  banks 
OF  Jordan  ;"  and  upon  "  Going  to  the  river."  But 
though  Jordan  was  at  hand,  we  read  no  more  about  the 
disciples  going  -'  to  the  river.''  We  hear  nothing  said 
by  the  Apostles  about  following  the  Saviour  down  the 
banks  of  Jordan.  They  baptize  wherever  they  may  hap- 
pen to  be  ;  and  are  never  at  a  loss,  or  compelled  to  remove 
to  another  place  for  the  purpose  of  finding  "  much  iva- 
ter^  It  does  not  appear  that  they  ever  think  it  needs 
much  water  for  baptism.  It  seems  strange,  therefore, 
that  John  went  to  Enon  to  find  much  water  for  the  mere 
purpose  of  baptizing. 

John  preached  "m  the  wilderness'^''  (Matt,  iii.)  it  is  said, 
Mark  i.  4, "  John  did  baptize  in  the  w^ilderness."  It  is 
said  that  "  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about,  w^ent  out  to  John."  Such  multitudes 
would  need  "  much  water^''  for  other  purposes  than  im- 
mersion ;  and  John  must  needs  resort  to  a  place  where 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  65 

much  watfT  might  be  found  to  furnish  those  multitudes 
in  the  wilderness  with  drink,  unless  indeed  he  could  work 
a  miracle,  and  we  read  that  "  John  did  no  miracle." 
This  may  seem,  at  first  view,  a  httle  matter  to  us,  in  this 
land  of  wells,  and  brooks,  and  springs;  but  all  who  are 
familiar  with  travels  in  the  East,  know  how  important  a 
considerable  caravan  finds  it  to  get  near  a  good  watering 
place  for  an  encampment,  even  for  a  single  night. 

Now  what  was  this  "  Wilderness  of  Judeal"  Take 
the  map  and  look  eastward  from  Jerusalem  and  Judea  to 
Jordan,  to  the  region  lying  between  these,  and  from  the 
Dead  Sea  up  to  what  is  supposed  to  be  Enon.  You 
have  embraced  the  location  of  the  wilderness  of  Judea. 
And  what  is  this  wilderness  ?  An  American  lady  (Mrs. 
Haight),  who  travelled  up  this  region  from  Jericho  a  short 
time  since,  thus  describes  her  journey  in  Vol.  ii.,  p.  131, 
of  her  travels.  "  Our  course  lay  due  north,  up  the  val- 
ley of  Jordan.  We  replenished  our  water-hottles  (bags),  as 
we  were  warned  that  we  should  find  no  more  until  after- 
noon. At  this  spot  we  left  all  signs  of  cultivation  ;  the 
plain  was  afterward  one  entire  desert^  during  the  whole 
day's  ride  of  twenty-five  miles.  The  soil  was  a  compact 
gravel,  or  as  geologists  call  it,  a  '  hard  pan,'  partially  cov- 
ered with  a  short  dry  grass,  the  result  of  the  winter  rains, 
which  withers  up  the  moment  their  influence  is  past. 
Not  a  single  object  or  incident  occurred  during  this  most 
tedious  and  painful  day  of  all  my  life.  This  was  the  first 
time  since  we  left  Beyroot  that  we  had  suffered  any 
length  of  time  for  want  of  water.  By  nine  o'clock  the 
intense  heat  of  the  sun  made  the  water  in  the  leather  bot- 
tles so  warm  that  we  could  not  drink  it.  Extreme  thirst 
obliged  us  merely  to  moisten  our  parched  tongues." 


66  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

Josephus  bears  the  same  testimony  of  this  wilderness. 
"  The  whole  plain,"'  says  he,  "  is  destitute  of  water,  ex- 
cept the  Jordan."  In  another  place  he  says,  that  "  The 
Jordan,  dividing  the  lake  of  Gennesareth  in  the  midst, 
passes  through  an  extensive  desert  into  the  Dead 
Sea." 

In  this  w^ilderness  John  was  preaching  and  baptizing. 
There  seems  here  reason  enough  why,  being;  in  the  wil- 
derness, he  should  "  go  to  the  river"  even  if  it  were  not 
to  immerse  ;  and  reason  enough  why  he  should  resort  to 
Enon  for  much  water,  even  for  other  purposes  than  im- 
mersion. The  immense  multitudes  would  need  water 
for  drink  ;  or  if  they  had  prudently  brought  a  supply  in 
their  leathern  bags,  John  might  still  have  preferred  the 
waters  of  the  river  for  the  purpose  of  purifying  ;  and  the 
traveller  "  Sandys*  says,  that  at  Ei.ori  are  little  springs 
gushing  out,  whose  waters  are  soon  absorbed  by  the 
sands."  Could  not  these  springs,  with  their  streams, 
have  been  the  (noXXa  £rJ«T«),  "  ma7iy  waters^'^''  for  the 
sake  of  which  John  resorted  to  Enon  ;  for  it  cannot  be 
supposed  but  that  there  was  as  *'  much  water  "  anywhere 
along  the  stream  of  Jordan  as  opposite  to  Enon  ;  and  to 
find  much  water  in  Jordan  could  be  no  reason  for  going 
to  Enon  more  than  for  "  going  to  the  river,"  or  any  other 
spot  1  We  read  no  more  of  "  going  to  th.e  river,"  or  of 
going  to  any  spot  to  find  much  water  for  the  purpose  of 
baptizing.  I  leave  it,  therefore,  for  you  to  judge,  whether 
the  argument  for  immersion  from  going  "  to  the  river," 
and  from  going  to  Enon,  because  there  was  "  m.uch  water 
there,"  does  not  dissipate  and  scatter  away  like  the  mists 
before  the  sun  and  wind. 

*  Hamilton  on  Baptism,  p.  92. 


SPRLNKLING  AND  POURING.  67 

"  But  Jesus  cavw  up  straightway  out  of  the  water. '^'^ 
The  argument  drawn  from  this  is  distinct  from  that  of 
going  to  the  river,  and  from  the  "  much  water"  at  Enon. 
It  therefore  merits  a  distinct  examination. 

Did  Jesus  emerge  from  beneath  the  surface  of  the  water  ; 
or  did  he  simply  go  up  out  of  the  water,  or  from  the 
water  *?  The  original  language  here  is  such  as  can  have 
no  reference  to  emerging  from  under  water,  the  Greek  is 
avaSaircDU  ano  tov  bdaiog^ — "  O^'^^^O  ^'P  ^'^^  ^f  (^^  /'"^^^O 
the  water.^"*  The  verb  and  the  preposition  both  forbid 
the  idea  of  emerging  from  under  water.  To  express 
this  both  should  have  been  changed,  and  the  Greek  is 
supplied  with  words  to  express  the  idea  exactly.  And 
Carson,  who  is  a  profound  Greek  scholar,  and  never  ad- 
mits against  his  scheme  anything  that  he  is  not  compelled 
to  admit,  says  (p.  200),  "  I  admit  the  proper  translation 
of  ttTTO  (apo)  is  from.,  not  out  of.  I  perfectly  agree  with 
Mr.  Ewing  that  ano  (the  w^ord  here  translated  '  out  of^) 
would  have  its  meaning  fully  verified,  if  they  had  onlu 
gone  down  to  the  edge  of  the  water. '''^  But,  says  he, 
"  My  argument  is  this.  •  If  baptism  had  not  been  by  im- 
mersion, there  can  4je  no  adequate  cause  alleged /or  go- 
ing to  the  river.  Can  sober  judgment,  can  candor  sup- 
pose, that  if  a  handful  of  water  would  have  sufficed  for 
baptism,  they  would  have  gone  to  the  river  V 

I  trust  1  have  your  judgment  decisively  given  on  the 
subject  of"  going  to  the  river:"  and  the  other  part,  that 
of"  coming  out  of  the  water,"  Mr.  Carson  has  formally 
given  up.  So  in  neither  case  is  there  the  shadow  of  a 
proof,  or  of  a  presumption,  that  the  baptism  was  per- 
formed by  immersion.  Going  into  the  water  (even  if  we 
admit  that  the  Saviour  went  further  than  "  the  edge  of  the 


68  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

water"),  and  coming  up  out  o/the  water,  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply  that  one  has  been  under  water,  or  that  he 
has  been  in  knee-deep.  How  much  less  can  a  simple 
going  up  from  the  water,  when  it  is  not  certain  that  one 
has  been  into  the  water  at  all,  necessarily  imply  that  he 
had  been  under  water  %  How  idle  to  rely  upon  this  to 
prove  it  ! 

Take  now  the  baptism  of  the  Eunuch,  Acts  viii.  38, 
39.  "  And  they  went  down  both  into  the  water ^  both  Philip 
and  the  Eunuch,  and  he  baptized  thein.  And  when  they 
were  come  up  out  of  the  water,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord 
caught  away  Philip." 

On  this  Mr.  Carson  says  (p.  203),  "  The  man  who 
can  read  it,  and  not  see  immersion  in  it,  must  have  in  his 
mind  something  unfavorable  to  the  investigation  of  truth. 
As  long  as  I  fear  God,  I  cannot,  for  all  the  kingdoms  of 
the  world,  resist  the  evidence  of  this  single  document. 
Nay,  had  I  no  conscience,  I  could  not  as  a  scholar  at- 
tempt to  expel  immersion  from  this  account.  All  the  in- 
genuity of  all  the  critics  in  Europe  cannot  expel  immer- 
sion from  this  account.  Amidst  the  most  violent  per- 
version that  it  can  sustain  on  the  rack,  it  will  still  cry 
out  immersion,  immersion."  The  fact,  that  in  a  work  in 
which  he  goes  over  the  whole  field  of  debate,  and  dis- 
cusses the  meaning  of  "  baptize"  from  old  Homer  to  the  end 
of  Greek  ;  the  fact  that  in  such  a  work,  consisting  of  274 
pages,  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  he  spends  24  pages  upon 
this  single  passage  of  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  shows  of 
how  much  importance  he  makes  it ;  and  indeed  we  are 
ready  to  suspect,  from  his  spending  so  much  labor  on  so 
very  plain  a  case,  that  he  found  it  not  very  easy  to  make 
a  clear  immersion  out  of  it  after  all. 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  69 

I  profess  I  see  no  immersion  in  the  account.  Whence 
is  the  immersion  inferred!  From  the  fact  that  the 
Eunuch  went  into  the  water,  and  came  up  out  of  the 
water  1  But  they  went  down  "  both''^  into  the  water, 
and  "  they''''  (both)  came  up  out  of  the  water.  If  going 
into  the  water,  and  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  prove 
an  immersion,  it  proves  that  Philip  was  immersed  as  well 
as  the  Eunuch  :  and  what  thus  proves  too  much  (proves 
what  is  not  true),  proves  nothing. 

Is  it  proved  from  the  fact  that  the  Eunuch  was  bap- 
tized ?  What  that  baptizing  was,  is  the  question.  I 
have  proved  that  people  and  things  were  often  baptized 
when  they  were  not  immersed,  but  only  sprinkled  or 
poured  upon.     The  baptism  proves  no  immersion. 

Precisely  the  same  words  might  have  been  used  in 
the  narrative,  had  they  come  to  a  stream  not  ankle-deep, 
and  gone  down  both  into*  the  water  ;  and  if  Philip,  hav- 
ing no  convenient  basin  or  dish,  had  dipped  his  hand  in 
the  water,  and  poured  or  sprinkled  it  upon  the  Eunuch  ; 
and  if  then  they  had  both  come  up  out  of  the  water. 
Who  will  prove  to  me  that  this  stream  was  a  foot  deep  1 
Who  will  prove  it  a  stream  at  all  1  Who  will  ^roue  the 
quantity  of  water  there  was  sufficient  to  render  an  immer- 

*  It  is  not  certain  that  they  went  further  than  to  the  water.  To 
make  the  Greek  £is  necessarily  mean  into,  would  make  Jesus 
come  mto  Jerusalem,  when  he  was  as  far  off  as  "  Bethphage  and 
the  Mount  of  Olives,"  Matth.  xxi.  1.  It  would  make  our-  Lord 
command  Peter  go  into  the  sea,  when  he  was  only  to  go  to  the  sea, 
Matth.  xvii.  27,  and  Peter  must  needs  have  thrown  himself  into 
the  sea  after  the  fish,  instead  of  casting  his  hook  in.  These  are 
but  specimens  of  numerous  similar  absurdities. 

In  John  XX.  4,  5,  One  came  {eis  to  fivriixsioi')  '■Ho  the  sepulchre," 

yet  went  he  not  tn"  (oo  ibzvroi  eiaj,\Bev). 


70  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

sion  possible  1  If  it  was,  who  will  prove  thai  the  Eunuch 
was  immersed  ?  I  see  no  proof  of  immersion  here.  The 
only  shoiu  of  proof  is  by  begging  the  question,  and  taking 
for  granted  the  very  thing  to  be  proved. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  some  probability  (aside 
from  the  fact  that  baptism  was  commonly  performed  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring),  to  suppose  that  the  Eunuch  was 
baptized  by  sprinkling.  He  was  reading  the  passage  in 
Isaiah  liii.  7,  which  he  did  not  understand.  Philip  began 
"at  the  beginning" — viz.,  at  the  beginning  of  that  pro- 
phecy concerning  Christ  (for  the  book  was  not  divided 
into  chapters  and  verses),  and  that  was  at  Chap,  lii 
13, — "Behold  my  servant."  Beginning  here,  Philip 
expounded  the  Scripture.  He  must  needs  have  read 
and  expounded  those  remarkable  words  in  ver.  15,  "  So 
shall  he  SPRINKLE  many  nations.''''  How  sprinkle  1  By 
purifying: — an  inward  purifying  by  his  Spirit:  and  a 
purifying  by  his  blood  ;  by  the  "  sprinkling  of  the  blood 
of  Christ ;"  and  by  the  Baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
outward  sign  of  these  inward  and  spiritual  things  is  the 
outward  purification  by  sprinkling.  Nov/  the  explana- 
tion of  this  passage  would  most  naturally  lead  to  the  con- 
versation about  baptism  :  the  outward  baptism  by  water. 
Baptism  is  the  only  ritual  application  of  water  under  the 
Christian  dispensation  ;  and  the  only  fio;ure  chosen  to  re- 
present the  spiritual  cleansing  by  Christ  is  sprinkling. 
This,  is  the  only  use  of  water  foretold  by  the  prophets 
even  in  figure.  Is  it  improbable  that  the  exposition  of 
this  passage  led  to  the  conversation  about  baptism  ?  And 
when  they  casually  came  to  water,  the  Eunuch  said, 
"  See,  here  is  water  :  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  bap- 
tized 1  "     In  the  absence  of  all  proof  to  the  contrary,  this 


SPRINKLING    AND    POURING.  71 

incident  goes  to  render  it  probable  that  the  Eunuch  was 
baptized  by  sprinkling.  The  other  instances,  yet  to  be 
adduced  from  the  sacred  record,  in  which  the  baptism 
must  apparently  have  been  performed  in  some  other 
mode  than  that  of  immersion,  concur  to  strengthen  this 
probability. 

Two  other  expressions  are  much  relied  on  as  proof  of 
the  mode  of  baptism  :  those  in  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  Col.  ii. 
12.  In  these  believers  are  said  to  be  baptized  into  the 
"  death"  of  Jesus  Christ :  and  "  buried  with  him  by  bap- 
tis7n  into  death."  The  language  is  figurative.  There  is 
just  as  much  reason  to  argue  from  them  that  believers  are 
literally  ^;w/  to  death  in  baptism,  as  that  they  are  literally 
buried  under  water  in  baptis-m  :  na'y,  the  dying  is  the  thing 
more  insisted  on,  and  indeed  the  principal  idea  ;  the  one 
on  which  the  whole  force  of  the  passage  turns.  They 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  ^^  into  death.''''  They 
are  "  planted  together,  in  the  likeness"  (not  of  his 
grave  or  burial),  but  in  the  likeness  of  his  death.  They 
are  ^^  crucified  with  him."  They  are  ^^  baptized''' — not 
into  his  grave  or  burial,  but  "  into  his  death.''^  If  we  are 
to  infer  the  mode  of  baptism  from  these  figures,  the  evi- 
dence is  strongest  for  drawing  a  resemblance  for  the 
mode  of  baptism  from  hanging  on  the  cross  :  for  that  was 
the  mode  of  his  dying  :  and  the  passage  says  we  are  "  cru- 
cified with  him."  But  the  reference  here  is  not  to  the 
mode.,  though  the  words  furnish  a  happy  sound  for  our 
Baptist  brethren  to  play  upon.  The  argument  is, — We 
are  dead  Vv'ith  Christ,  and  we  must  no  more  live  to  sin 
than  a  dead  body  must  live.  We  are  dead  ;  and  more — 
we  are  buried  ;  as  we  often  say  to  express  strongly  the 
fact  that  a  person  has  ceased  from  living,  "  He  is  dead 


72  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

and  hurled.''''  The  burying  is  the  conclusive  token  of  his 
being  dead  :  so  the  baptism  is  a  token,  not  of  the  bury- 
ing, but  of  the  death;  we  are  buried  "  into  death  ;" 
we  are  "  baptized  into  his  death."  It  is  not  the  mode 
of  the  baptism  that  is  referred  to,  but  the  import  of  the 
baptism : — "  Our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the 
body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed  :"  "  that  henceforth  we 
should  not  serve  sin  :"  "  that  henceforth  we  should  be 
dead  to  sin."  I  confess  I  see  no  manner  of  force  in  the 
argument  drawn  from  the  passage  in  favor  of  immersion. 
The  argument  being  from  the  import  of  baptism  rather 
than  from  its  mode,  both  the  language  and  the  argument 
are  equally  appropriate,  whatever  the  mode. 

In  1  Cor.  X.  2,  the  apostle  says,  "  The  Israelites  were 
all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea." 
Apparently,  from  the  quantity  of  water  in  the  vicinity, 
this  passage,  as  well  as  that  in  I  Pel.  iii.  21,  concerning 
the  "  eight  souls  saved  by  water  :  the  hke  figure  where- 
unto  even  baptism  doth  now  save  us," — has  been  claimed 
as  proving  immersion.  Surely  there  was  water  enough 
in  the  Red  Sea  to  immerse  the  Israelites  ;  and  water 
enough  in  the  Deluge  to  immerse  the  world,  and  literally 
to  ^'bury  it  into  death.''''  But  it  seems  to  be  forgotten 
that  the  "  eight  souls  saved  by  water"  were  in  the  ark, 
and  neither  drowned  nor  immersed  at  all  :*  and  that  the 
Israelites  who  were  baptize^d  unto  Moses  walked  on  dry 

*  To  this  Mr.  Carson  replies,  p.  413,  "  What  could  be  a  more 
expressive  burial  in  water  than  to  be  in  the  ark  when  it  was 
floating  ?  As  well  might  it  be  said  that  a  person  is  not  buried  in 
the  earth,  when  lying  in  his  cofRn,  covered  with  earth.  May  not 
persons  in  a  ship  be  said  figuratively  to  be  buried  in  the  sea  1 
They  who  were  in  the  ark  were  deeply  immersed.     '  Moses,'  Mr. 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  73 

land.  They  suffered  no  immersion,  unless  one  may  be 
immersed  on  dry  land.  If  they  were  wet  at  all,  it  was 
by  the  spray  of  the  sea,  and  by  the  rain  that  dropped 
from  the  clouds  :  as  in  Ps.  Ixxvii. — "  Thou  ieddest  thy 
people  like  a  flock  by  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron  ;" 
— "  The  waters  saw  thee,  O  God  :  the  waters  saw  thee  ; 
they  were  afraid :  the  depths  also  were  troubled :  the 
clouds  poured  out  water. '^'^  If  there  is  any  niode  of  bap- 
tism here,  it  is  a  sprinkling,  or  such  a  pouring  out  of 
water  as  falls  in  drops.  A  baptism  there  was  :  an  ijn- 
mersion  there  was  not. 

The  instances  so  far  considered  are  the  ones  relied  on 
to  prove  that  immersion  was  the  mode  of  baptism,  and 
the  only  one  practised  by  the  immediate  disciples  of 
Christ.  I  think  I  have  shown  that  they  prove  no  such 
thing  :  that  they  afford  scarcely  the  faintest  shadow  of  it : 
but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the  probability  is  all  in  favor 
of  a  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprinkling. 

In  the  remaining  instances  the  advocates  of  immersion 
are  compelled  to  take  the  laboring  oar,  and  render  that 
certain  or  probable,  which  on  the  face  of  it  seems  im- 
possible. 

On  the  day  of  pentecost  ("  the  feast  of  weeks,  of  the 
first  fruits  oi  wheat  harvest,''''  Exod.  xxxiv.  22),  the  season 
when  the  brook  Kidron  was  dry,  and  v/hen,  "  save  the 
pool  of  Siloam,  no  living  fountain  gladdened  the  city," 
three  thousand  were  baptized  in  a  small  part  of  one  day. 

H.  tells  us, '  walked  on  dry  ground.'  Yes,  and  he  got  a  dry  dip. 
And  could  not  a  person,  literally  covered  with  oil-cloth,  get  a  dry 
immersion  in  the  water  V 

I  confess  I  have  not  "perspicacity"  enough  to  see  the  force  of 
such  reasoning. 

4 


74  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

Now  what  do  those  who  make  John  take  Jerusalem  and 
Judea  out  to  Enon  to  immerse  them  because  there  is 
much  water  there  1  All  at  once,  and  very  conveniently, 
there  are  discovered  a  number  of  reservoirs  and  baths. 
But  it  is  forgotten  that  these  can  belong  only  to  the  rich  ; 
and  not  many  rich  or  mighty  were  in  the  habit  of  be- 
friending the  followers  of  Christ ;  and  the  great  mass  of 
the  converts  appear  to  be  strangers  at  Jerusalem.  Not 
the  least  intimation  is  found  that  such  bathing  places 
were  resorted  to.  And  a  simple  mathematical  calcula- 
tion will  show  that  the  eleven  apostles  could  hardly  have 
immersed  three  thousand  persons  in  so  short  a  time  All 
these  circumstances  show  a  high  degree  of  probability, 
that  there  was  no  immersion  here. 

The  Jailer  (Acts  xvi.  19-30)  was  baptized  in  the  night, 
and  it  should  seem  in  prison.  But  it  is  urged  there 
might  be  a  bath  there  :  and  long  arguments  are  held  to 
show  that  the  prison  might  have  been  furnished  with  a 
bath,  in  which  the  Jailer  inight  have  been  immersed. 
Surely,  surely,  that  is  a  happy  facility  of  discovery, 
which  after  making  it  necessary  for  all  Judea  to  go  out 
to  Jordan  to  find  water  enough  to  be  baptized,  and  to 
go  to  a  particular  point  on  Jordan, — to  Enon,  because 
there  is  much  water  there  ;  can  presently  find  water 
enough  anywhere  and  everywhere.  If  a  bath  should 
perchance  be  wanted,  there  is  no  diflaculty :  a  stroke  of 
the  pen  places  it  there  ;  and  a  certain  immersion  is  per- 
*  formed  without  a  scrap  of  evidence  in  the  history  to  show 
that  an  immersion  was  possible  ! 

But  this  ground  is  now  very  generally  given  up,  and 
a  way  for  immersion  is  found  out  even  without  a  bath  in 
the  prison.     It  is  now  maintained  that  they  went  forth  ; 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  76 

because  he  was  brought  out  of  the  prison,  and  then 
brought  into  the  house  ;  and  it  is  demanded,  as  an  unan- 
swerable argument,  why  he  was  taken  abroad  in  the 
night,  except  for  immersion  ;  or  why  taken  abroad  at  all, 
if  he  might  be  baptized  by  sprinkling  within. 

Now  this  is  to  give  up  the  baptism  in  a  bath  within 
the  prison  ;  for  I  take  it  as  a  point  not  to  be  debated,  that 
he  was  not  baptized  both  in  the  prison  and  out  of  it,  in 
one  and  the  same  baptism.  But  in  letting  this  strong- 
hold go,  as  they  in  justice  should,  have  they  found  an- 
other where  they  may  rest  secure  1  I  think  not.  The 
Jailer  thrust  them  into  the  inner  prison :  then  he  brought 
them  out  of  that  into  the  more  common  part  of  the 
prison ; — not  out  of  doors  abroad  ;  for  we  see  that  he 
was  ready  to  kill  himself  when  he  supposed  the  prison- 
ers had  escaped,  even  by  means  of  an  earthquake.  In 
this  prison  proper  the  baptism  was  performed  :  then  the 
Jailer  brought  them  into  his  house  ;  i.  e.,  into  his  dwell- 
ing apartments,  doubtless  attached  to  the  prison.  There 
w^as  no  going  abroad  at  all.  Paul  would  not  go  out  upon 
leave,  till  the  magistrates  came  and  fetched  him  out. 
So,  the  bath  is  given  up,  and  the  substitute  fails :  and 
accordmg  to  the  proper  rules  of  argument  we  should  be 
entitled  to  have  it  granted,  on  their  own  ground,  that 
here  was  no  immersion.  Every  expedient  has  failed,  and 
we  have,  in  all  reason,  a  simple  common  baptism  by 
sprinkling  or  pouring.  • 

Paul's  baptism  is  recorded  in  Acts  ix.  17,  18.  He 
was  in  his  chamber,  blind,  and  weak  with  fasting  three 
days.  "He  arose  (or  stood  up)  and  was  baptized  ;  and 
when  he  had  received  meat  he  was  strengthened ^  What 
pretence  for  a  bath  in  this  inner   chamber  \     What  is 


7n 


LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 


there  to  show  that  he  went  abroad  in  his  weak  state,  be- 
fore he  had  received  meat  and  was  strengthened  \  I  am 
unable  even  to  conjecture  what.  It  was,  I  think,  beyond 
proper  question,  a  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  pouring. 

The  baptism  of  Cornelius  is  recorded.  Acts  x.  44. 
Those  who  heard  Peter  were  first  baptized  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  "  And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy 
Ghost  fell  on  them,  as  on  us  at  the  beginning.  Then 
remembered  I  the  word  of  the  Lord,  how  that  he 
said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water,  but  ye  shall  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,^^  Acts  xi.  15.  He  reason- 
ed at  the  time  thus  :  These  have  received  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  can  any  man  forbid  water  ?  The}'  have  received 
the  greater  baptism,  can  any  man  forbid  the  less  :  they 
have  the  reality^  can  any  man  forbid  the  sign  ?  His  idea 
seems  to  be,  not  that  they  might  be  carried  and  applied 
to  the  loater  ;  but  that  water  might  be  brought  and  applied 
to  them.  The  Spirit's  mode  of  baptizing  was  a  falling 
upon,  and  such,  it  seems  clearly,  was  the  probable  appli- 
cation of  the  water  here. 

Here  I  rest  under  the  second  inquiry.  Not  only  is 
there  no  evidence  that  the  apostles  always  baptized  by 
immersion,  but  clear  evidence  to  the  contrary  :  and  I  add, 
no  certain  evidence  that  they  immersed  at  all.  The 
probability,  even  so  far  as  concerns  this,  is  on  the  other 
side.  I  do  profess  myself  unable,  and  my  belief  that  all 
other  men  are  unabl^  to  make  out  a  clear  case  of  baptism 
by  im.mersion  in  the  New   Testament.*       And    yet  if 

*  Rev.  Wm.  T.  Hamilton,  in  his  work  on  baptism,  says  (p.  89), 
*'  And  1  hesitate  not  to  assert  that  no  man  can  prove  that  either  John  or 
the  Apostles  baptized  by  i7nmersion  :" — "  and  for  any  to  assume  that 
one  mode  only  was  employed,  and  then  demand  that  all  should 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  77 

twenty  might  be  made  out,  it  would  not  invalidate  the 
argument,  as  I  shall  show  under  the  third  inquiry. 

Previously  to  entering  upon  this,  however,  it  seems 
desirable  to  say  a  word,  in  passing,  on  the  argument 
FROM  HISTORY.  It  is  not  indeed  essential.  I  care  not 
who  gets  the  argument  from  history,  provided  I  get  the 
argument  clear  and  decisive  from  the  word  of  God. 

That  immersion  was  early  and  extensively  practised 
is  certain.  That  it  was  not  considered  essential  is  also 
certain.*  The  practice  was  never  invariable.  The  sick 
and  feeble  were  baptized  by  affusion  or  sprinkling  ;  and 
baptism  in  such  modes  was  distinctly  recognized  as  valid 
as  in  other  cases.  Novatian  was  baptized  by  affusion  as  he 
lay  upon  his  bed  in  sickness.  The  Emperor  Constantino 
was  baptized  by  Eusebius,  of  Nicomedia,  lying  on  his 

comply  with  that  mode,  while  they  can  produce  neither  express 
command  nor  an  undeniable  example  of  baptism  by  immersion  in 
the  Bible,  is  rather  a  bold  stand  to  take  ;  especially  for  those  who 
insist  that,  in  a  positive  ordinance,  the  law  of  the  ordinance  must 
be  our  only  guide." 

*  Justin  is  relied  on  to  prove  that  immersion  only  was  prac- 
tised in  his  day.  But  he  uses  such  language  as  renders  it  certain 
that  he  by  no  means  considered  immersion  essential ;  and  such  as 
renders  it  doubtful  whether  he  meant  immersion  at  all.  Thus, 
when  he  is  writing  to  the  Emperor  he  invariably  describks  the 
baptism,  and  does  not  use  the  word  baptize  at  all.  He  describes 
the  baptism  by  the  words  Xouw  (louo)  "  to  wash,"  and  y^ovrpovf 
WASHING.  But  these  words  referred  to  oio  particular  mode  of 
applying  water,  least  of  all  to  an  indispensable  immersion  ;  and 
if  he  thought  immersion  essential  he  wilfully  misled  the  Emperor, 
who  would  of  necessity  understand  that  they  were  washed  in  any 
mode,  and  not  necessarily  immersed  ;  but  if  in  any  specific  mode, 
— by  an  application  of  water  to  the  subject,  not  of  the  subject  to 
the  water. —  Chapin,  p.  65. 


78  LAAV  OF  BAPTISM. 

bed,  clothed  in  white.  Sixty  or  seventy  years  after  the 
Apostles,  a  Jew  while  travelling  with  Christians  fell  sick 
and  desired  baptism.  Not  having  water,  they  sprinkled 
him  thrice  with  sand.  "  He  recovered.  His  case  was 
reported  to  the  bishop,  who  decided  that  the  man  was 
baptized,  if  only  he  had  water  poured  on  him  again."* 
Laurentius  is  mentioned  as  baptizing  two  persons,  Ro- 
manus  and  Lucilius,  by  affusion.  "  A  little  while  before 
he  suffered,  he  baptized  one  of  his  executioners  with  a 
pitcher  of  water. '''^'\  Many  such  cases  are  all  along  inci- 
dentally recorded.  Upon  the  best  search  that  I  can 
make,  I  am  compelled  to  abide  by  the  conclusion  of  Dr. 
Pond,  who  says  (p.  43),  "  I  propose  it  as  an  indubita- 
ble fact  that  immersion  was  never  considered  essential  to 
baptism  till  the  rise  of  the  Anabaptists  in  Germany,  in 
the  sixteenth  century." 

History  shows  that  Christians  early  laid  an  improper 
stress  upon  baptism,  attributing  to  it  an  efficacy  which  by 
no  means  belongs  to  it.  To  the  simple  rite  of  baptism 
by  sprinkling  or  affusion  practised  by  the  Apostles,  they 
ooon  added  a  more  thorough  washing  with  a  greater 
quantity  of  water. J  And  this  is  scarce  to  be  wondered 
at  when  we  remember  how  Peter  said,  "  Lord,  not  my 
feet  only,  but  my  hands  and  my  head."  And  yet  our 
Saviour  did  seem  to  caution  his  disciples  against  this  ten- 
denc}^  to  overdo  and  overburden  religious  rites,  when  he 
replied,  "  He  that  is  washed,  needeth  not,  save  to  wash 
his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit."     The  tendency  was 

*  In  Pond,  p.  45  t  Ibid.,  p.  48. 

J  Jerome  speaks  of  a  mode  of  baptism  as  common  in  the  ancient 
church,  which  was  not  to  dip  the  whole  body,  but  a  "  ?AnVe  dip- 
■ping  of  the  head"     Augustine  mentions  the  same.     ( Pond,  p.  46.) 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  79 

never  to  throw  off  any  part  of  the  ceremony,  but  to  add 
more.  To  immersion  they  soon  added  a  trine  immer- 
sion ;  exorcisms  (or  expelling  the  devil  from  the  can- 
didate) ;  putting  salt  on  the  tongue  ;  anointing  the  eyes, 
ears,  and  mouth,  v/ith  spittle  ;  marking  with  the  sign  of 
the  cross,  clothing  in  a  white  robe,  and  anointing  with 
oil.  They  went  further.  Not  content  with  being  lite- 
rally buried  in  the  waters,  they  imbibed  another  notion 
from  "  putting  off  the  old  man,"  and  also  from  the  na- 
kedness of  Christ  on  the  cross  (for  the  same  passage 
which  speaks  of  being  buried  with  Christ  speaks  of  the 
old  man  being  crucified  with  Christ)  :  and  they  baptized 
all  naked :  men,  women,  youths,  children,  all  alike  ac- 
tually naked,  divested  of  all  clothing  !  Truly,  "  Bap- 
tisteries" were  necessary  at  that  period  :  and  he  would 
not  be  wide  from  the  mark  who  should  see  here  a  reason 
for  their  invention,  to  remedy  the  indecencies  of  the 
scene  ;  but  from  the  beginning  it  was  not  so.  For  au- 
thority as  to  this  fact  I  refer  to  Dr.  Wall's  History  of 
Infant  Baptism,  and  to  Dr.  Miller  on  Baptism,  p.  105. 
Wall  says,  "  The  ancient  Christians,  when  they  were 
baptized  by  immersion,  were  all  baptized  naked,  whether 
they  were  men,  women,  or  children."  Dr.  Miller  adds, 
"  We  have  the  same  evidence  (to  wit,  from  history)  in 
favor  of  immersing  divested  of  all  clothing,  that  we  have 
for  immersion  at  all,"  and  that  "  so  far  as  the  history  of 
the  Church  subsequent  to  the  Apostolic  age  informs  us, 
these  must  stand  or  fall  together." 

The  argument  from  history,  therefore,  proves  nothing 
pertinent  to  the  determining  of  the  question,  or  it  proves 
altogether  too  much.     It  cannot  weigh  against  the  word 


80  LAW  OP'  BAPTISM. 

of  God,  and  the  suitable  exposition  of  the  law  of  baptism 
as  instituted  by  Christ. 

But  here  justice  requires  that  I  go  a  little  further.  A 
tract  entitled  "  A  Familiar  Dialogue  between  Peter  and 
Benjamin  on  the  subject  of  Communion^''''  has  been  exten- 
sively circulated  here,  and  all  around  in  the  region,  and, 
as  appears,  extensively  through  the  country.  On  the 
first  page  of  this  tract  we  have  the  following  sentence  : 
"  As  late  as  1643,  in  the  Assembly  of  Divines  at  West- 
minster, sprinkling  was  substituted  for  immersion  by  a 
majority  of  one — 25  voted  for  sprinkling,  24  for  immer- 
sion. This  small  majority  was  obtained  by  the  earnest 
request  of  Dr  Lightfoot,  who  had  acquired  great  influ- 
ence in  that  Assembly." 

Now  all  this  is  told  for  truth.  It  is  told  most  circum- 
stantially : — "  in  1643" — "  the  Assembly  of  Divines," — 
"  majority  of  otjc," — "  24  for  immersion," — "  25  for 
sprinkling," — *'  by  the  earnest  request  of  Dr.  Lightfoot." 

Like  other  fictions,  this  fiction  is  founded  on  fact,  but 
it  is  not  the  truth. 

From  the  journal  of  Lightfoot  it  appears, 

L  That  the  matter  in  dispute  was,  ^^  sprinkling  being 
granted^  irhether  dipping  shovlb  be  tolerated  with  it." 
This  was  the  form,  and  the  reality,  of  the  question  whe- 
ther to  dip  or  sprinkle.  The  proposition,  "  It  is  lawful 
and  sufficient  to  besprinkle  the  child,"  had  been  canvassed 
and  was  ready  to  vote.  But  Dr.  Lightfoot  "  spoke 
against  it  as  being  very  unfit  to  vote  that  it  is  laicful  to 
sprinkle  when  every  one  grants  it."  Whereupon  it 
was  fallen  upon,  sprinkling  being  granted,  whether  dip- 
ping should  be  tolerated  with  it.  And  here,  says 
Lightfoot,  "  we  fell  upon  a  large  and  long  discourse  whe- 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  81 

ther  dipping  was  essential,  or  used  in  the  first  institution, 
or  in  the  Jews'  custom." 

2.  It  was  not  true  that  24  voted  for  immersion,  as  op- 
posed to  sprinkling  ;  but,  as  Dr.  Lightfoot  says,  ''  so 
many  were  unwilling  to  have  dipping  excluded,  that  the 
votes  came  to  an  equality  within  one."  It  was  not  that 
they  wished  immersion  to  be  adopted,  or  even  recom- 
mended in  the  Directory  ;  but  simply  that  the  Directory 
might  not  prohibit  immersion  to  those  who  should  prefer 
it.  When  the  proposition  was  put  in  such  a  .shape  as 
not  to  make  dipping  unlawful,  the  Assembly,  with  great 
unanimity^  declared  in  their  Directory  that  for  the  mode 
of  baptizing,  it  is  '■hiot  only  lawful  hut  also  sufficient, 
and  MOST  expedient,  to  be  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water 
on  the  face  of  the  child,  without  adding  any  other  cere- 
mony." 

3.  Nothing  at  all  was  finally  determined  on  that  vote 
of  24  to  25.  "  After  that  vote,"  Lightfoot  says,  "  when 
we  had  done  all,  we  concluded  nothing  about  it,  but  the 
business  was  recommitted." 

On  the  following  points,  then,  the  statement  of  the 
tract  in  question  is  not  true  : 

1.  It  is  not  true,  that  sprinkling  was  substituted  for 
immersion  by  the  Assembly  of  Divines. 

2.  It  is  not  true,  that  24  voted  for  immersion  and  25 
for  sprinkling,  as  opposing  or  preferring  sprinkling  to  im- 
mersion. All  they  wanted  was,  not  to  exclude  dipping 
as  unlawful ;  and  as  soon  as  this  point  was  yielded  them, 
they  '*with  great  unanimity"  concurred  in  the  vote 
declaring  sprinkling  to  be  "  lawful,"  "  sufficient  and  most 
expedient." 

4* 


82 


LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 


3.  It  is  not  true,  that  the  assembly  finally  determined 
anything  as  touching  this  matter  by  a  majority  of  one. 

From  this  is  vamped  up  the  statement  in  the  tract ; 
and  the  statement  is  made  in  such  a  connection  as  to 
lead  people  to  understand,  that  "  immersion  "  had  been 
the  common  mode,  and  the  Assembly  substituted  sprink- 
ling for  it.  There  was  no  such  substitution,  either  in 
fact,  or  even  so  much  as  a  substitution  of  the  word 
sprinkling  for  the  word  immersion  in  the  Directory.  Dr. 
Miller  appears  to  be  amply  justified  when  he  says, — 
*'  The  common  statement  of  this  matter  by  our  Baptist 
brethren  is  an  entire  misrepresentation." 

That  those  who  print  and  circulate  this  tract  know  its 
statements  to  be  false,  I  cannot  aflBrm.  That  its  state- 
ments are  grossly  untrue,  may  be  seen  by  a  bare  reference 
to  dates,  which  every  schoolboy  oucjht  to  know. 

The  time  when  the  sprinkling  was  said  to  be  substi- 
tuted for  immersion  was  the  year  1643.  Twenty-three 
years  before  this,  our  Pilgrim  Fathers  landed  at  Ply- 
mouth ;  and  if  immersion  had  been  the  common  practice 
in  England  they  would  have  brought  it  with  them.  But 
the  fact  was  so  far  from  this,  that  sixteen  years  after, 
Roger  Williams  removed  from  Massachusetts  to  Provi- 
dence, and  continued  a  Psedo-baptist  for  three  years 
longer.  When  at  length  he  turned  Baptist,  as  Mr.  Hague, 
the  present  minister  of  the  original  Roger  Williams 
Church  in  Providence,  says,  in  his  "  Historical  Dis- 
course"— (and  as  is  narrated  in  the  "  Life  of  Roger  Wil- 
liams')— "  The  difficulty  that  arose  was  the  want  of  a 
proper  administrator:  for  at  that  time,  no  ordained  min- 
ister could  be  found,  in  America  who  had  been  immersed  on 


SPRINKLING    AND    POURmG.  83 

a  profession  of  faith. '^'''^  And  yet  there  were  many  aged 
ministers  in  America,  who  had  long  been  ministers  in 
Old  England  before  they  came  across  the  waters  !  A 
Mr.  Ezekiel  Hariman,  a  layman,  first  immersed  Mr. 
Williams,  and  then  Mr.  Williams  immersed  the  rest. 
This  was  the  beginning  of  the  Baptists  in  America. f 

So  again,  Richard  Blount,  in  the  reign  of  King 
Charles  II.,  went  from  England  to  the  Netherlands  to  be 
immersed,  because  he  deemed  it  could  not  suitably  be 
done  in  England ;  and  when  he  returned,  he  immersed 
the  Rev.  Samuel  Blackstock,  and  these  two  immersed 
the  rest  of  a  number  who  wished  to  become  a  Baptist 
Church,  on  what  they  deemed  the  proper  foundation  ; 
to  wit,  an  authorized  ministry  and  an  authorized  bap- 
tism. Could  this  have  happened  had  sprinkling  been 
substituted  for  immersion  only  a  few  years  before,  and 
that  by  a  majority  of  only  one  in  an  Assembly  of  the 
leading  Divines  of  England  ?J 

*  Hague's  Historical  Discourse,  1840,  p.  27. 

t  Mr.  Williams  soon  after  left  the  Baptists  and  turned  Seeker. 

X  There  were  at  this  time  some  few  Baptists  in  England,  but  it 
does  not  appear  that  any  were  in  the  Assembly  of  Divines. 

Dr.  Murdock  (on  Mosheim,  vol.  iii)  says,  ''  The  first  regular 
congregation  of  English  Baptists  appears  to  have  originated  from 
certain  English  Puritans,  who  returned  from  Holland  after  the 
death  of  their  pastor,  Rev.  John  Smith,  who  died  in  1610." — "  From 
this  time  onward,  churches  of  General  Baptists  were  formed  here 
and  there  in  different  parts  of  England.  But,  in  general,  they 
made  no  great  figure,  and  do  not  appear  to  have  had  much  con- 
nection, or  to  have  professed  one  uniform  faith."  "  The  Particular 
Baptists  (Calvinistic)  trace  their  origin  to  a  congregation  of 
Independents,  established  in  London  in  1G16.  This  congregation 
having  become  very  large,  and  some  of  them  differing  from  the 
others  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism,  they  agreed  to  diviV*' 


84  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

From  these  facts  alone  any  one  may  see  that  it  cannot 
possibly  be  true,  that  immersion  had  been  the  common 
mode  of  baptism  in  England  up  to  1643,  and  that  sprink- 
ling was  then  substituted  for  it,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Assembly  of  Divines.* 

When  this  tract  first  fell  into  m}^  hands,  I  looked  at  it 
with  astonishment ;  and  concluded  that  it  was  some  stray 
print,  published  by  some  ignorant  and  irresponsible  man, 
a  work  which  nobody  would  be  willing  to  acknowledge. 
But  on  turning  to  the  title  page,  I  see  it  printed  at  the 
bottom  in  staring  capitals  ; — "  Philadelphia  :  Baptist 
General  Tract  Society.     No.  21  South  4th  Street.'''' 

I  need  not  pursue  this  matter  further  :  nor  indeed  was 
it  essential  to  advert  to  it  at  all.  If  we  should  grant 
everything  from  ecclesiastical  history  which  any  desire 
to  assume,  it  would  bear  nothing  on  the  question.  Chris- 
tianity in  the  hands  of  men  may  become  corrupt : — it  did 
early  become  corrupt.  The  word  of  God  is  the  pure 
fountain.  What  instructions  may  be  gathered  there  1 
To  the  law,  to  the  testimony.  History  shows  that  im- 
mersion was  not  at  any  time  considered   by  the  ancient 

Those  who  disbelieved  in  infant  baptism  were  regularly  dis- 
missed in  1633,  and  formed  into  a  new  church  under  Rev.  John 
Spihhury.  And  in  1639  a  new  Baptist  church  was  formed. 
Churches  of  Particular  Baptists  now  multiplied  rapidly."  They 
published  a  confession  of  theiv  faith  in  1643  (published  by  the 
SEVEN  churches  of  London),  "which  was  reprinted  in  1644  and 
1646,  and  which  was  revised  in  16S9,  by  a  convention  of  elders 
and  delegates  from  more  thu.n  one  hundred  churches  of  England 
and  Wales." — Murdock's  Mosheim,  Vol.  iii.,  pp.  540,  541. 

*  With  about  as  much  reason  it  is  elsewhere  asserted  that 
sprinkling  was  substituted  for  immersion  by  the  authority  of  the 
Pope,  in  1311. 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  85 

church  as  essential  to  baptism  :  and  if  the  ancient  church 
HAD  thought  it  essential,  still  we  have  no  authority  for 
making  that  essential  which  was  not  deemed  so  by  the 
apostles  and  the  word  of  God.     I  return  to  the  argument. 

3.  On  the  supposition  that  the  early  "  disciples  always 
baptized  by  immersion,  is  there  evidence  that  they  consi- 
dered that  mode  essential  V 

Suppose  the  command  had  been,  "  Let  every  believer 
go  down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho^  Suppose  that  the 
Saviour  and  his  early  disciples  all  went  by  one  particular 
way,  and  always  rode  on  ass  colts.  Must  we  always  go 
in  that  road  1  Must  we  always  ride  on  ass  colts  % — or  is 
it  essential  whether  we  ride  at  all  }  Certainly  not.  We 
are  commanded  to  go  down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho, 
and  this  we  must  do.  But  to  go  in  any  particular  road  ; 
or  to  ride  ;  or  to  walk  ;  is  no  part  of  the  command.  The 
thincj  is  required,  the  mode  is  not  a  matter  of  command.* 
He  usurps  the  prerogative  of  Christ  who  makes  any 
particular  road,  or  any  particular  mode  of  going,  essen- 
tial. 

So  here  ;  we  are  to  be  baptized,  and  simply  baptized. 
But  I  have  shown  that  the  words  "  baptize"  and  "  bap- 
tism" were  in  common  use  among  the  Jews  at  that  time 
to  denote  a  ritual  purification  b}'-  sprinkling  or  pouring; 

*  Thus,  we  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  with  bread  and  wine. 
But  Christ  and  the  apostles  first  celebrated  it  under  the  following 
circumstances,  in  which  nobody  deems  it  essential  to  follow  them. 
1.  It  was  at  night.  2.  In  an  upper  room.  3.  They  used  imleavcned 
bread.  4.  They  partook  in  a  reclining  posture.  5.  After  eating  a 
meal.  6.  With,  no  fe^nale  disciples  present.  To  my  mind  there  *ap. 
pears  just  as  much  reason  for  insisting  on  the  mode  of  baptism,  as 
for  insisting  on  the  observance  of  these  six  particulars  in  the 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  no  more. 


86  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

possibly  also  they  were  in  use  to  denote  a  ritual  purifica- 
tion by  immersion,  though  this  lacks  proof;  and  were  it 
indubitably  proved,  still  the  only  effect  would  be  to  show 
that  there  are  three  authorized  modes  of  baptizing  instead 
of  two  ;  and  the  argument  would  be  the  stronger  that  the 
mode  is  not  essential.  In  this  state  of  the  case,  suppose 
Christ  and  his  disciples  had  all  been  baptized  by  sprink- 
ling. This  does  not  bind  us  to  be  baptized  in  that  mode. 
Had  they  all  been  baptized  by  immersion,  it  would  not 
bind  us  to  an  immersion.  Here  are  several  modes  of  ap- 
plying water,  all  called  equally  baptism.  Our  Lord 
commands  us  to  be  baptized :  the  particular  mode  he  does 
not  designate.  How  can  we  tell  that  he  did  not,  for  the 
most  consequential  reasons,  leave  it  indeterminate  ?  If 
we  add  the  mode  to  the  command,  we  add  to  the  law  of 
Christ. 

But  here  it  may  be  replied,  "  is  there  not  one  faith, 
ONE  Lord,  one  baptism  V  Indeed,  it  is  much  insisted 
by  our  Baptist  brethren  that  the  unify  of  baptism  consists 
in  unity  of  mode  ;  and  that  three  modes,  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing, immersing,  make  three  baptisms. 

I  might  here  be  entitled  to  insist,  that  if  the  unity  of 
baptism  consists  in  unity  of  mode^  then  the  mode  of  im- 
mersion is  most  certainly  excluded  ;  for  sprinkling  has 
been  proved  a  lawful  mode  ;  and  pouring ^  by  its  superior 
proof,  comes  in  with  a  better  title  than  immersion,  even  if 
sprinkling  were  given  up. 

But  the  unity  of  baptism  does  not  consist  in  the  unity 
of  mode^  but  in  the  unity  of  design^  the  unity  of  significa- 
tion^ unity  with  regard  to  the  great  truths  to  which  it 
refers  ;  unity  into  the  "  one  body  into  which  we  are  all 
baptized  by  the  same  Spirit  '*     The  Bible  unequivocally 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  87 

teaches  us  that  the  one  baptism  does  not  consist  in  the 
one  mode.  Turn  to  Acts  xix.  Certain  disciples  had 
been  ignorantly  baptized  with  John's  baptism,  instead  of 
the  baptism  which  Christ  enjoined,  and  were  baptized 
over  again.  I  am  aware  that  many  of  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren think  it  necessary  to  insist  that  there  w^as  no  re- 
baptism  :  and  it  is  scarce  a  wonder;  because  if  there  was 
here  a  re-baptism  it  effectually  shows  that  John's  baptism 
and  Christian  baptism  are  entirely  distinct ;  and  spoils 
many  arguments  founded  on  the  notion  that  the  baptisms 
are  the  same.  Thus,  in  the  Tract  which  has  already 
been  quoted, — the  "  Familiar  Dialogue  between  Peter 
and  Benjamin,"  published  by  the  "  Baptist  General  Tract 
Society"  (p.  5),  Peter  is  made  to  say  in  the  dialogue, 
— "  I  have  been  a  little  puzzled  with  the  account  given 
in  Acts  xix.  1-6,  respecting  the  disciples  whom  Paul 
found  at  Ephesus.  Do  you  think  they  were  re-baptized  ?" 
Benjamin  is  made  to  answer  : — "  By  no  means,  and  I 
think  I  can  relieve  your  mind  in  few  words  :"  and  then 
goes  on  to  argue  that  there  was  no  re-baptism.  I  only 
wonder  that  a  cause,  which  requires  so  plain  a  statement 
of  Scripture  to  be  denied,  should  be  thought  worth  de- 
fending. The  words  of  the  Scripture  are  these  :  "  And 
he  said  unto  them,  unto  what  were  ye  then  baptized! 
And  they  said,  unto  Johi's  baptism.  Then  said  Paul, 
John  verily  baptized  with  the  baptism  of  repentance, 
saying  unto  the  people  that  they  should  believe  on  him 
which  should  come  after  him  ;  that  is,  on  Christ  Jesus. 
When  they  heard  this,  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus.  And  when  Paul  had  laid  his  hands  upon 
them,  the  Holy  Ghost  came  on  them."* 

*  Mr.  Carson,  p.  372,  admits  that,  in  Acts  xix,  1,  6,  some  who 


88  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Hard  lot  indeed,  to  be  driven  to  deny  that  here  was  a 
re-baptism,  and  yet  to  hold  on  to  the  scheme  that  requires 
such  a  denial  ! 

But  mark :  here  were  tioo  baptisms,  while  there  need 
not  have  been  more  than  one  mode.  Unity  of  mode 
therefore^  does  not  make  unity  of  baptism  ;  and  unity  of 
BAPTISM  DOES  NOT  CONSIST  IN  THE  MODE  ;  it  lies  in  some^ 
thing  else.  Here  the  mode  was  good  enough ;  but  the 
design^  the  intent^  the  truths  on  the  faith  of  which  the  bap- 
tism was  based,  were  different.  These  made  the  two 
transactions  in  one  modcy  two  baptisms.  The  *'  07ie  bap- 
tism," therefore,  consists  in  the  one  design^  the  one  sifj- 
nification,  the  unity  of  faith  m  the  same  truths,  which  are 
represented  by  baptism ;  and  oneness  in  these  things 
would  make  one  baptism,  though  the  mere  outward 
modes  should  vary  ever  so  much ;  and  the  mode  is  not 
essential.  To  make  the  unity  of  baptism  consist  in  the 
nwde  is,  as  if  we  were  to  make  a  man's  identity  consist 
in  his  dress  :  he  is  one  man  in  a  coat  with  broad  skirts  ; 
he  is  quite  another  man,  and  has  lost  all  his  legal  and 
social  and  personal  identity,  in  a  coat  with  narrow  skirts. 
And  mark  still  further  here : — in  the  main  particulars, 
the  essentials,  of  the  baptism  with  which  Christ  was 
baptized,  we  are  not  to  follow  him ;  and  so  another 
set  of  arguments  and  of  strong  appeals  falls  to  the 
ground. 

He  was  not  baptized  till  thirty  years  old,  and  that  for  a 
special  reason.     We  are  not  to  follow  him  here. 

had  been  baptized  with  John's  baptism  were  baptized  over  again. 
"  I  know  this  is  disputed,"  he  says ;  "  but  for  my  part  I  never 
doubted  it.  I  cannot  see  how  this  can  be  denied,  without  tor- 
turing the  word  of^  God." 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  89 

He  was  not  baptized  "  unto  repentance.''^  John's  disci- 
ples could  not  follow  him  here. 

He  was  not  baptized  to  ^'- wash  away  sins.''''  No  man 
can  follow  him  here. 

He  was  not  baptized  in  the  "  name  of  the  Son  and  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.''''    No  man  is  to  follow  him  here. 

In  fine  :  according  to  the  word  of  God,  if  we  had  been 
baptized  with  John's  baptism  ever  so  ceremoniously,  in 
order  to  Christian  baptism  we  must  needs  be  baptized 
over  again. 

I  go  on  with  the  argument.  Now  our  Lord  command- 
ed us  simply  to  be  baptized:  and  there  being  in  common 
use  two  (or  if  we  grant  our  Baptist  Brethren,  what  we 
do  not  desire  to  deny,  but  what  they  cannot  prove, — 
three)  modes  of  ritual  purifying  called  baptism  ;  our  Lord 
left  the  mode  indeterminate.  How  can  we  tell  that  he 
did  not  with  deliberation  and  for  the  most  consequential 
reasons,  leave  it  indeterminate  .'' 

Suppose  you  make  the  mode  essential,  and  insist  that 
all  shall  be  immersed,  or  barred  out  of  the  Church. 
How  can  you  tell  that  you  are  not  presuming  to  require 
what  the  Lord  purposely  left  optional  for  the  most  cogent 
and  essential  reasons  ]  And  if  so,  how  will  you  answer 
it  to  God  for  attempting  thus  to  judge  "  another  man's  ser- 
vant," and  to  "  lord  it  over  God's  heritage  ?"  Suppose 
that  Christ  forbore  to  enjoin  the  particular  mode  of  im- 
mersion for  this  reason  :  to  wit — that  his  Gospel  is  de- 
signed to  fill  the  whole  earth,  and  to  be  applicable  with 
all  its  ordinances  to  all  men  everywhere  in  all  conditions. 
But  there  are  deserts^  where  men  may  travel  for  days  and 
not  find  water  enough  for  immersion.  There  are  frozen 
regions,  where  immersion  is  a  large  part  of  the  year  nearly 


90  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

or  quite  ir\*^t)racticable.  Many  are  sick ;  many  are  in  such 
a  state  of  health  that  they  cannot  go  abroad,  much  less 
go  and  be  immersed,  especially  in  winter,  without  en- 
dangering their  lives.  Must  all  these  be  kept  from 
Christ's  ordinances,  because  some  think  that  what  Christ 
saw  fit  (perhaps  for  these  very  reasons  among  others) 
not  to  prescribe,  should  be  made  essential  ?  Because 
these  cannot  he  immersed^  are  they  therefore  to  linger  and 
die  without  ever  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  what- 
ever their  desire  for  that  and  for  baptism  too  %  It  has 
been  well  said,  that  "  baptism  was  made  for  man,  not  man 
for  baptism  ;"  and  may  not  Christ  have  designedly  left  the 
mode  undetermined  for  such  reasons  as  these  ?  Is  there 
no  presumption  in  adding  the  mode  to  his  command  % 
Or,  waiving  these  considerations,  and  supposing  that,  in 
Judea,  immersion  might  always  have  been  readily  prac- 
tised on  account  of  the  comparative  mildness  of  the  cli- 
mate ;  and  granting,  moreover,  that  nobody  was  ever 
sick  there  ;  can  we  be  sure  that  it  is  entirely  in  keeping 
with  the  simplicity  of  Christ,  and  with  the  lightness  and 
simplicity  of  his  ordinances,  to — cut  a  hole  in  the  ice  and 
immerse  sixty  men  and  women,  while  the  weather  is  so 
cold  as  to  keep  a  number  of  men  employed  in  stirring 
the  water  with  poles  to  keep  it  from  freezing  over  while 
the  immersion  is  going  on  ? — as  the  papers  have 
informed  us  was  done  in  the  Delaware  river  the  last  win- 
ter. Since  Christ  has  not  commanded  this,  nor  required 
baptism  to  be  done  in  the  mode  of  immersion  at  all,  how 
can  we  dare  to  add  such  doings  as  these  to  his  gentle  and 
easy  commands  ? 

We   cannot.     We   dare    not.      And  yet   for  this  we 
must  be  cut  off  from  communion  with  those  whom  we 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  91 

love  as  brethren.  We  see  no  scriptural  evidence  for  the 
peculiar  mode  of  immersion :  but  we  leave  our  brethren 
to  decide  for  themselves  according  to  their  conscience. 
We  have  conscientiously  intended  to  obey  the  command 
to  be  baptized.  We  think  we  have  obeyed  it.  But  our 
brethren  judge  over  our  consciences,  and  would  thrust 
us  from  the  church,  unless  we  will  submit  our  judgment 
and  our  conscience  to  theirs.  They  often  say  to  us, 
"  since  j^ou  regard  immersion  as  valid  baptism,  you  ought 
to  come  to  us,  since  we  cannot  in  conscience  come  to 
you."  We  reply.  Brethren,  can  you  not  allow  us  liberty 
of  conscience  too  1  Can  you  not  receive  us  without 
stripping  us  of  our  dearest  rights  1  We  are  ready  to 
allow  and  give  immersion  to  them;  but  we  demand 
liberty  of  conscience  too.  We  are  required  to  come 
under  a  yoke  which  we  are  confident  Christ  never  im- 
posed. We  are  required  to  do  that  which  we  consider 
as  adding  to  Christ's  commands  ;  thrusting  out  many  from 
his  ordinances  ;  and  compelling  many  more  to  enjoy 
them  at  the  risk  of  their  lives.  Nay,  if  we  would  yield 
our  own  consciences  and  surrender  our  own  liberty,  they 
would  then  compel  us,  in  the  same  manner,  to  lord  it 
over  the  consciences  of  others  ;  or,  in  default,  cast  us  out 
of  the  church  :  and  so  if.the  Baptist  were  the  only  church, 
— all  those  whose  earnest  research  and  whose  honest 
conscience  should  not  lead  them  to  see  immersion,  and 
only  immersion,  in  all  the  baptisms  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, must  be  debarred  from  Christ's  house  on  earth, 
and  excommunicated  from  his  table  !  And  every  one 
who  will  consent  to  join  them  is,  perforce,  compelled  to 
join  in  this  unhallowed  proscription  of  the  children  of  God 
and  heirs  of  salvation  ;  and  that  under  penalty  of  disci- 


92  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

pline  and  censure  even  to  excommunication !  A  man 
may  not  commune  at  Christ's  table,  even  with  his  own 
father,  or  with  the  wife  of  his  bosom,  be  they  ever  so 
faithful  to  Christ,  if  they  are  so  unfortunate  as  not 
to  see  immersion  in  baptism,  and  have  been  baptized  in 
any  other  mode  !  No — everything  must  be  squared  to 
their  understanding,  and  cut  according  to  their  opinion. 
The  wife  shall  be  debarred  from  partaking  of  the  emblems 
of  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Saviour  in  connection  with 
her  dying  husband,  who  desires  once  more,  before  he  de- 
parts, to  commemorate  a  Saviour's  love  !  We  feel  not  at 
Uberty  to  countenance  such  a  ruthless  despotism  as  this. 
Could  we  surrender  our  own  liberty,  we  have  yet  some 
conscience  left,  which  forbids  us  to  lend  our  aid  in  tyran- 
nizing over  the  consciences  of  others.  Had  we  person- 
ally no  objection  to  immersion,  we  should  feel  bound,  for 
freedom's  sake,  for  the  truth's  sake,  and  for  Christ's  sake, 
to  "  stand  fast  in  that  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath 
made  us  free."  We  are  not  willing  to  be  made  the  in- 
struments of  destroying  the  liberty  of  others.  As  we  love 
Christ  we  dare  not  be  brought  under  such  a  "  yoke  of 
bondage  to  any  man."  As  we  love  God  or  regard  the 
rights  of  men,  we  dare  not  join  in  this  unhallowed  lord- 
ing it  over  the  consciences  of  others.  We  remember 
that  it  is  written,  "  Who  art  thou,  that  judgest  another 
man's  servant  %  To  his  own  master  he  standeth  or  fall- 
eth."  We  leave  it  to  every  man's  conscience  to  decide 
whether  he  has  been  baptized,  and  when  satisfied  that 
according;  to  his  own  understand  ins:  and  his  own  con- 
science  he  has  obeyed  the  command  to  be  baptized,  we 
dare  not  judge  over  him.  On  the  customary  tokens  of 
piety,  and  on  the  customary  profession,  as  that  custom 


SPRINKLING  AND  POURING.  93 

exists  in  churches  of  any  other  evangelical  denomina- 
tion, we  receive  him,  and  with  open  arms,  to  our  com- 
munion, and  to  that  table  which  is  not  ours  but  the 
Lord's.* 

But  when  we  have  seen  on  what  ground  exclusive  im- 
mersion is  required  ;  when — as  we  are  required  to 
prove  all  things — we  prove  it  by  the  word  of  God,  and 
in  our  sober  judgment,  its  very  foundations  flit  away 
"  like  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision  ;"  how  can  we  on 
such  grounds  join  in  unchurching  and  cutting  off  from 
the  communion  of  the  saints  so  many  others,  who,  we 
cannot  doubt,  are  received  of  God  1     No,  we  have  not 

*  "  There  were  at  that  time  (16<S9).  several  churches  of  Cal- 
vinistic  Baptists,  who  held  to  open  communion  especially  in 
Bedfordshire,  where  John  Bunyan  preached."  (Murdock'sMos- 
heim,   Vol.  iii.,  p.  540.) 

"  Before  the  erection  of  regular  Baptist  congregations,  and  in- 
deed for  some  time  after,  it  was  veiy  common  for  Baptists  and 
others  to  belong  to  the  same  church,  and  to  worship  and  com- 
mune together."     (Ibid., p.  541.) 

The  celebrated  Robert  Hall  was  most  strenuously  opposed  to 
close  communion. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  are  fond  of  saying  that  they  hold  to  no 
more  close  communion  than  we  do.  Will  they  put  it  to  the  test  1 
Will  they  receive  to  their  communion  every  person  who  has,  on 
a  credible  profession  of  piety,  been  received  to  some  evangelical 
church  of  another  denomination,  and  who,  "  according  to  his  own 
understanding  and  his  own  conscience,  has  obeyed  the  command 
to  be  baptized  ?  " 

Wo  give  the  following  invitation  before  the  communion : 
"  Members  of  other  churches  present,  of  all  evangelical  denomina- 
tions, in  regular  standing  in  their  own  churches,  are  invited  to 
partake  with  us."  If  our  Baptist  brethren  hold  to  no  more  close 
communion  than  we,  will  they  adopt  this  form  ?  If  not,  will 
they  give  up  their  assertion  as  fallacious  and  untrue  ? 


94  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

SO  learned  Christ.  We  have  gone  to  His  word  for  our 
views  of  truth  and  order.  On  that  we  rest ;  leaving  it 
to  others  to  answer  their  own  conscience,  and  to  enjoy 
their  belief  without  let  or  molestation  from  us,  on  the 
ground  which  we  have  examined  and  proved  we  stand 
fast.  If  our  views  of  faith  and  order  should  be  assailed, 
we  shall  nevertheless  remember,  that  we  have  examined 
and  proved  them  ; — and,  with  much  prayer  and  with 
solemn  and  full  conviction,  have  found  that  they  rest 
broadly  and  solidly  upon  the  eternal  word  of  God. 


in. 


ADDITIONAL  DISSERTATIONS  UPON  PARTICULAR 
POINTS  TOUCHING  THE  INTERPRETATION  01 
THE  WORD  BAPTIZE. 


I.    CLASSIC  GKEEK,  AND  THE  GREEK  OF  THE  NEW    TESTA- 
MENT. 

Says  Professor  Robinson,  in  his  preface  to  his  Lexicon 
of  the  New  Testament : 

"A  Lexicon  of  the  New  Testament,  at  the  present  day, 
presupposes  the  fact ^  that  the  language  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment exhibits  in  many  points  a  departure  from  the  idiom 
of  the  Attic  Greek.  This  great  question,  which  so  long 
agitated  the  learned  philologists  of  Europe,  would  seem  at 
present  to  be  put  entirely  at  rest."  The  plan  of  his  lexi- 
con, he  says,  is,  "  In  defining  words,  those  significations 
are  placed  first  which  accord  with  Greek  usage  ;"  "  Then 
follow  those  significations  which  depart  from  Greek  usage, 
and  which  are  either  to  be  illustrated  from  the  Greek  of 
the  Septuagint,  as  compared  with  the  Hebrew,  or  depend 
SOLELY  ON  THE  usTJs  LOQUENDi"  (customary  usc  of  words), 

"of  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT  Writers.''^ 

Dr.  George  Campbell,  whom  our  Baptist  brethren  are 
fond  of  complimenting  as  one  of  the  most  finished  Greek 
scholars  of  modern  times,  maintains  that  many  of  the 
idioms  of  the  New  Testament  Greek  would  not  have  been 
more  intelligible  to  a  classic  Greek  author  than  Arabic 


96  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

or  Persian.  ''  Take,"  says  he,  "  the  two  following  for 
examples.  Ovx  advvajijaev  naqa  tm  0£(B  nav  Qfj/^cXj 
Luke  i.  37  ;  and  ovx  av  eooiOi]  naaa  aaq^^  Matt.  xxiv.  22." 
(In  English,  "  With  God  nothing  shall  be  impossible," 
and  "  There  should  no  flesh  be  saved.")  "  These  pas- 
sages in  the  New  Testament  Greek  are,"  says  Campbell, 
"  phrases  which,  in  my  apprehension,  would  not  have 
been  more  intelligible  to  a  Greek  author  than  Arabic  or 
Persian  would  have  been.  Pi]^ia  for  thincj^  and  nauu  ovx 
for  no  oncj  or  none,  occg^  for  person,  &c.,  would  to  him, 
I  suspect,  have  proved  insurmountable  obstacles."  *  * 
"  This,"  says  he,  ^'  is  but  a  small  specimen— not  the 
hundredth  part  of  what  might  be  produced  on  this  sub- 
ject."    (Prelim.  Dis.  I.,  vol.  i.,  p.  30.) 

"  It  is  true,"  says  Campbell  (Prelim.  Dis.  I.,  Part 2), 
*'  that  as  the  New  Testament  is  written  in  Greek,  it  must 
be  of  consequence  that  we  be  able  to  enter  critically  into 
the  ordinary  import  of  the  words  of  that  tongue."  "  But 
from  what  has  been  observed,  it  is  evident,  that  though 
in  several  cases  this  knowledge  may  be  eminently  useful, 
it  will  not  suffice  /  nay,  in  many  cases,  it  will  be  of  little 
01  no  significancy."  "  Classical  use,  both  in  Greek  and 
in  Latin,  is  not  only,  in  this  study,  sometimes  imavailahle, 
hut  MAY  EVEN  MISLEAD.  The  sacred  use  and  the  classical 
are  often  very  diffebent." 

The  Biblical  Repository,  for  April,  1841,  has  an  article 
on  "  The  Bible  and  its  Literature,^''  by  Professor  Edward 
Robinson.'  In  this  article  Professor  Robinson  says, 
"  The  lan^uao-e  of  the  New  Testament  is  the  latter  Greek, 
as  spoken  by  foreigners  of  the  Hebrew  stock,  and  applied  by 
them  to  subjects  on  which  it  had  never  been  employed  by 
native  Greeks.     After  the  disuse  of  the  ancient  Hebrew 


PRINCIPLES  OF  INTERPRETATION.  97 

in  Palestine,  and  tlie  irruption  of  Western  conquerors, 
the  Jews  adopted  the  Greek  language  from  necessity  ; — 
partly  as  a  conquered  people,  and  partly  from  intercourse 
of  life  and  commerce,  in  colonies,  in  cities,  founded  like 
Alexandria,  and  others,  which  were  peopled  with  throngs 
of  Jews.  It  was,  therefore,  the  spoken  language  of  or- 
dinary life  which  they  learned,  not  the  classic  style  of 
books  which  have  elsewhere  come  dov>^n  to  us.  But 
they  spoke  it  as  foreigners,  whose  native  tongue  was  the 
later  Aramean  ;  and  it  therefore  could  not  fail  to  acquire 
from  their  lips  a  strong  Semitic  character  and  coloring. 
When  to  this  v/e  add,  that  they  spoke  in  Greek  on  the 
things  of  the  true  Gody  and  the  relations  of  mankind  to  Je- 
hovah and  to  a  Saviour — subjects  to  which  no  native  Greek 
had  ever  applied  his  beautiful  language,  it  will  be  obvious 
that  an    appeal  merely    to    classic    Greek    and  its 

PPIILOLOGY  WILL    NOT    SUFFICE    FOR   THE    INTERPRETER  OF 

THE  New  Testament.  The  Jewish-Greek  must  be  stu- 
died almost  as  an  independent  dialect,  <S)T." 

The  change  of  meaning  in  many  words  of  the  Greek 
language,  upon  adapting  it  to  the  ideas  and  observances 
j)f  a  revealed  religion,  was  a  matter  of  necessity  :  and 
that  aside  from  the  natural  influence  of  the  Hebraic  idiom. 
Carry  the  Gospel  to  China,  or  Hindostan,  or  among  the 
tribes  of  our  American  Indians ;  it  brings  them  a  multi- 
inide  of  ideas  which  are  peculiar  to  revealed  religion. 
To  express  these  ideas,  the  old  words  of  their  language 
inust  receive  a  new  meaning  ;  or  they  must  coin  new 
words  ;  or  they  must  adopt  words  from  the  language  of 
those  who  brought  them  the  new  religion,  or  from  some 
other  quarter.* 

*  Said  David  Brainerd,  "  There  are  no  words  in  the  Indian 
5 


98  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

If,  instead  of  a  new  religion^  a  new  language  is  car- 
ried among  a  people  professino;  the  true  religion,  the 
words  of  that  new  lano;uao;e  receive  a  new  meanino;  the 
moment  they  are  applied  to  the  religious  ideas  and  obser- 
vances to  which  the  language  was  before  a  stranger. 
Carry  any  heathen  language  into  a  Gospel  land,  or  into  a 
land  of  Hebrew  rites,  and  of  Hebrew  ideas  concerning  the 
true  God  and  revealed  religion,  and  it  is  impossible  that 
the  meaning  of  such  words  as  are  applied  to  these  new 
ideas  should  not  be  even  more  changed  than  is  the  idiom 
of  the  language  in  the  construction  of  phrases.  Such  is 
the  fact  with  regard  to  the  New  Testament  Greek  as 
compared  with  the  classic,  or  even  with  the  common 
dialect  which  prevailed  after  the  conquests  of  Alexan- 
der. 

A  Baptist  writer  has  attempted  to  explain  this  matter 
by  referring  to  the  "  Irish-English"  of  an  ''  Irishman, 
after  having  become  acquainted  with  our  language  and 
able  to  speak  it  with  fluency,  yet  you  can  detect  them 
using  phrases  and  words  peculiar  to  their  own  vernacular 
tongue,  and  dissimilar  to  ours."  This  by  no  means  meets 
the  case,  but  is  calculated  entirely  to  mislead.  The  Irish- 
man has  religious  ideas,  to  a  great  extent,  common  with 
us.  An  African  or  an  Indian  might  learn  our  language,  and 
yet  speak  it  in  a  manner  peculiar  to  himself.  But 
what  would  be  the  effect  upon  their  own  language,  when 
the  Christian  religion  was  once  completely  estab- 
lished among  them  ^  New  ideas  fill  the  mind  of  the 
benighted  pagan,  and  lift  up  his  thoughts  to  angels — to 

language  to  answer  to  our  English  words,  Lord,  Saviour,  salvation, 
sinner,  justice,  condemnation,  faith,  adoption,  glory,  with  scores 
of  like  importance." 


PRINCIPLFS  OF  INTERPRETATION.  99 

Heaven — to  God.  He  thinks  of  redemption,  of  faith,  of 
hohness.  His  thoughts,  his  hopes,  his  intellect,  his 
heart, — all  are  wonderfully  transformed.  "  Old  things 
pass  away  :  all  things  become  new."  Are  his  lips  seal- 
ed .''  Is  he  dumb  ?  Are  African  converts  never  to  speak 
to  each  other  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  The  words  of 
their  language  remaining  the  same,  and  applied  to  these 
new  and  wonderful  ideas,  is  their  meaning  the  same  1 
Is  the  whole  change  expressed  by  referring  to  the  brogue 
of  an  Irishman  whose  mother  tongue  was  Irish-English, 
and  whose  ideas  have  never  changed  from  pagan  to 
Christian  1 

That  such  icas  the  effect  of  adapting  the  pagan  Greek 
language  to  the  Christian  religion,  any  one  may  see,  who 
will  sit  down  patiently  and  turn  over  the  leaves  of  a  Lexi- 
con of  the  New  Testament,  which  adequately  discrimi- 
nates and  marks  the  transition. 

The  sole  intent  of  all  this  discussion  about  the  classic 
use  and  the  Nev/  Testament  use,  is  to  show  that  the 
word  baptize  in  tne  New  Testament  may  have  left  its 
primary  classic  signification^  and  have  received  a  generic, 
SACKED  use,  equivalent  to  washing  or  purifying,  without 
the  least  reference  to  the  mode  in  lohich  that  "  washing  of 
water''"'  is  performed.  Whether  this  be  the  fact  or  not^ 
is  to  be  learned  not  from  the  Greek  classics,  but  from 
the  New  Testament  itself.  As  to  this  matter  of  fact, 
Mark  and  Luke  and  Paul  are  better  witnesses  concerning 
what  they  themselves  understood  by  the  word  baptize, 
han  Xenophon,  Aristotle,  or  than  ev^en  that  Hebrew  of 
Hebrews,  the  Jewish  Josephus,  when  he  is  using  the 
word  in  the  sense  of  the  Greek  classics,  with  no  refer 
r»nce  to  its  use  as  applied  to  a  religious  ordinance. 


100  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Will  any  Baptist  make  an  issue  on  this  point,  and 
maintain  that  Apostles  and  Evangelists  are  not  to  be  heard 
in  evidence  ?  Will  any  Baptist  maintain  that  Evange- 
lists and  Apostles  may  not  explain  their  own  meaning  in 
just  the  same  way  that  heathen  Greeks  may  explain 
theirs  ?  Will  any  Baptist  maintain,  that  where  the 
testimony  of  the  New  Testam.ent  writers  differs  from 
that  of  the  heathen  Greeks,  the  New  Testament  witness 
is  not  to  be  heard  before  any  heathen,  and  before  all  the 
heathen  classics  together  ?  In  fine,  the  question  here 
is,  Is  the  Holy  Ghost  a  competent  and  credible  witness 
as  to  the  sense  in  which  the  Holy  Ghost  uses  the  word 
baptize? 

JUDD    ON    MARK    VII.    4. 

Mr.  Judd,  in  his  reply  to  Stuart,  p.  25,  translates  the 
passage,  "  And  when  they  come  from  the  market,  except 
they  BamiawvTaij  baptize  themselves."  In  the  same 
manner  he  makes  the  Pharisee,  in  Luke  xi.  38,  wonder 
that  Jesus  had  not  been  baptized  before  dinner.  As  Mr. 
Judd  maintains  that  baptize  must  and  shall  mean  im- 
merse, lie  maintains  that  baptize  not  only  may  have  its 
usual  meaning  here,  but  that  "  that  meaning  is  absolutely 
required  by  the  scope  and  harmony  of  the  passage  :"  i. 
e.,  he  will  make  the  Scripture  here  testify  that  the  Phari- 
sees and  all  the  Jews  immersed  their  whole  bodies  be- 
fore eating,  as  often  as  they  came  from  the  market. 
"  Surely,"  says  he,  p.  37,  "the  Jews  could  have  im- 
mersed themselves  after  coming  from  the  market." 
Surely  they  couldj  if  they  never  went  from  the  market, 
and  took  their  meals  where  they  could  not.  But  Mr. 
Judd  mistakes  the  question.     The  inquiry  should  be,  not 


DR.    CAMPBELL.  101 

whether  they  surely  could  immerse  themselves,  but 
whether  they  surely  did.  It  is  not  necessary  to  show 
that  the  act  of  immersion  was  physically  impossible  :  the 
proper  inquiry  is,  not  whether  it  was  impossible  to  be 
done,  but  whether  it  can  possibly  be  true  that  it  was  ac- 
tually done.  Surely  the  Jews  could  have  eaten  Stephen 
like  cannibals  after  they  had  stoned  him  ;  for  the  thing 
was  not  impossible  to  be  done :  but  it  is  impossible  that 
it  should  be  true  that  it  was  done.  Of  such  a  custom  of 
immersing  the  whole  body  as  often  as  they  came  from 
the  market,  there  is  not  a  scrap  of  evidence  in  the  wide 
world,  except  in  this  assumed  meaning  of  the  word  bap- 
tize. The  manners  and  customs  of  the  Jews  have  been 
well  known ;  and  no  such  custom  was  ever  known  or 
heard  of,  till  invented  as  a  historical  fact  necessary  to  help 
the  Baptists  out  of  this  difficulty. 

Dr.   GEORGE    CAMPBELL  ON    MARK  VII.  4,  AND    LUKE  XI.  38. 

The  learned  George  Campbell,  whom  our  Baptist 
brethren  are  so  fond  of  quoting  on  these  passages,  in  Mark 
vii.  4,  and  Luke  xi.  38,  finds  it  impossible  to  carry  out 
his  theory.  He  is  about  the  work  of  translating  the  New 
Testament ;  and  he  is  determined  beforehand  that  baptize 
must  mean  exclusively  immerse. 

Mark  says,  that  the  "  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews, 
when  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  baptize 
themselves^  eat  not."  Mr.  Campbell  does  not  believe 
that  they  immersed  themselves  as  often  as  they  came  from 
the  market.  What  does  he  do  ?  Does  he  give  a  gram- 
matical and  faithful  translation  of  the  word  baptize  1  He 
dares  not.  He  gives  no  translation  :  he  makes  a  gloss  : 
he  gives  a  commentary,  and  "  correct '  and  alters  the 


102  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

diction"  of  the  Scriptures  by  substituting  his  comment  in 
the  place  of  the  words  which  the  Holy  Ghost  teacheth. 
And  this  is  his  comment — for  no  scholar,  I  trust,  will 
ever  venture  to  call  it  translation.  "  For  the  Pharisees, 
and  indeed  all  the  Jews  who  observe  the  tradition  of  the 
elders,  eat  not  except  they  have  w^ashed  their  hands  by 

POURING  A  LITTLE  WATER  UPON  THEM  !"      The  WOrds,  "  by 

pouring  a  little  water  npon  them,^^  are  not  in  the  original ; 
they  are  inserted  by  Mr.  Campbell.  And,  in  the  name 
of  wonder,  I  would  deraand,  does  the  word  Nitttcj  (JSTipto) 
necessarily  limit  the  mode  of  washing  to  "  pouring  a 
little  water  on  the  hands  ?  "  Does  it  not  mean  to  wash  ; 
and  simply  "  wash  ;"  without  referring  in  the  least  to  the 
mode  ;  whether  by  pouring  the  water  on  the  hands,  or 
by  dipping  them  ?  But  let  us  go  on  with  Mr.  Camp- 
bell's translation  :  "  For  the  Pharisees,  and  indeed  all  the 
Jews  who  observe  the  tradition  of  the  elders,  eat  not  ex- 
cept they  have  washed  their  hands  by  pouring  a  little 
water  upon  them :  and  w4ien  they  come  from  the  market, 
BY  DIPPING  THEM."  Does  he  Call  this  a  translation  of  the 
words  ^J]  SccTtTiffMvrai  ?  Does  the  verb  baptizo  then 
mean,  to  dtp  the  hands  }  I  repeat  it  ;  a  comment  this 
may  be  ;  but  it  is  no  simple  nor  faithful  translation  of  the 
word  of  God.  Nor  can  a  faithful  translation  of  the  passage 
be  made,  giving  to  "  baptize"  the  meaning  of"  immerse," 
without  making  the  passage  speak  that  which  Mr. 
Campbell  held  as  not  true.  Carson  is  right,  and  must 
have  the  judgm.ent  of  every  unbiassed  scholar  in  his 
favor,  that  Campbell's  notion  of  making  this  baptism 
refer  to  the  hands  by  dipping  them,  is  "  an  ingenious  de- 
vice, without  any  authority  from  the  genius  and  practice 
of  the  lancruase." 


PROFESSOR    RIPLEY.  103 

Campbell's  translation  of  Luke  xi.  38  is  still  more  re- 
markable. Luke,  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  says, 
"  The  Pharisees  marvelled  that  Jesus  had  not  first  been 
baptized  before  dinner"  (s^anTiadr]).  Which  Campbell 
thus  translates  :  "  But  the  Pharisee  was  surprised  to  ob- 
serve that  he  used  no  washing  before  dinner."  Here 
the  distinction  between  washing  and  dipping  cannot  be 
pretended :  and  what  becomes  of  Campbell's  argument 
about  '^  immerse"  as  being  the  only  proper  meaning  of 
the  word  "  baptize  1"  Here  the  scripture  says,  The 
Pharisee  marvelled  that  Jesus  had  not  been  baptized  bcr 
fore  dinner.  Campbell  dares  not  translate  the  word  "  bap- 
tize" here  by  the  word  "  immerse  :"  nor  does  he  find  it 
possible  to  introduce  the  word  "  hands  ?"  The  first  would 
make  the  Bible  speak  falsehood,  and  the  latter  would  be 
too  gross  an  "  alteration  of  the  diction  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  He  therefore  gives  up  all  talk  about  immersing 
or  dipping — and  says,  "  He  used  no  washing  before  din- 
ner ;"  and  so  is,  after  all,  driven  on  to  the  very  ground 
adopted  in  our  common  English  translation. 

PROFESSOR  RIPLEY  ON  MARK  VII.  4,  AND  LUKE  XI.  38. 

The  remarks  of  Professor  Ripley  on  these  two  pas- 
sages, in  his  examination  of  Professor  Stuart,  are,  it 
seems  to  me,  as  curious  a  piece  of  non-committal,  and  of 
tripping  lightly  over  ground  on  which  one  dares  not  tread 
firmly,  as  can  be  found  in  the  whole  compass  of  Biblical 
criticism. 

He  thinks  the  passage  in  Mark  may  be  rendered, 
"  without  the  least  violence  to  its  language,"  so  as  to 
make  it  read  that  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  im- 
merse their  whple  bodies  as  often  as  they  come  from  the 


104  LAV/  OF  BAPTISM. 

market.  Blay  be  rendered !  without  molence  to  the 
language  !  Is  that  the  proper  reading  ?  Is  that  the  truth, 
concerning  what  was  customarily  done  by  the  Jews  upon 
coming  from  the  market  1  Does  Professor  Ripley  6e- 
lleve  that  such  a  custom  was  so  universal  and  so  invaria- 
ble among  the  Jews,  as  to  make  it  a  matter  of  wonder, 
that  Jesus  should  sit  down  to  dinner  without  having  first 
immersed  his  whole  body  1  Hear  him.  "  That  some 
of  the  stricter  sort,  that  many,  enough  to  justify  the 
Evangelist's  general  expression,  did  practise  total  ablu- 
tion on  the  occasion  mentioned,  is  altogether  credible." 

Some — of  the  stricter  sort  ! many  !  enough  to  justify 

the  Evangelist! is  altogether  credible!  Then  Pro- 
fessor Ripley  dares  not  join,  without  misgiving,  in  affirm- 
ing that  "  all  the  Jews"  had  the  custom  of  immersing 
themselves  when  they  came  from  the  market }  No.  He 
says,  *'  In  the  absence  of  clear  satisfying  proof  it  is  not 
becoming  to  make  positive  assertions."  How  is  this  1 
The  word  "  baptize"  mean  exclusively  "  immerse  ;" — the 
Holy  Ghost  affirm  that  they  baptize  themselves  ; — and  yet 
no  "  clear  satisfying  proof"  that  they  immerse  themselves  ! 
Is  the  ivitncss  not  a  credible  one,  or  is  there  some  doubt 
whether  the  ivord  means  "  immerse  .^"  But  Professor  Rip- 
ley says  he  is  by  no  means  satisfied  that  this  is  a  *'  neces- 
sary view  of  the  passage,"  viz.  that  they  immerse  thein- 
selves.  "  Necessary  .'"  Will  he  hold  to  it  at  all  1  We 
shall  see.  But  says  he  again,  "  However  striking  the 
language  of  Mark  may,  by  some,  be  considered,  as  re- 
cognizing such  a  practice  (and  the  language  is  certainly 
coincident  witli  such  a  practice,  especially  when  we  look 
at  it  by  the  investigations  respecting  "  baptize"  on  the  pre- 
ceding pages),  yet  I  am  not  disposed  to  urge  it.''^     Not 


PROFESSOR    RIPLEY.  105 

disposed  to  urge  it  ?  Does  he  believe  it  1  Will  he  ven- 
ture to  stand  upon  that  ground  ?  Will  he  venture 
either  to  affirm  it  or  deny  it  \  JN^o —  He  dares  not  rest 
upon  either  ground,  and  make  the  Bible  read  either, 
"  except  they  immerse  themselves  ;  or,  "  except  they  im- 
merse their  hands.''''  He  gently  feels  the  ground  of  the 
first  with  his  foot,  but  dares  not  venture  upon  it.  He 
then  poises  himself,  and  presses  with  the  other  foot  upon 
other  ground  ;  but  he  dares  not  rest  upon  this  and  aban- 
don the  first.  With  regard  to  the  first  he  says,  "  In  the 
absence  of  clear,  satisfying  proof,  it  is  not  becoming  to 
make  any  positive  assertions  :"  "  the  language  is  coinci- 
dent with  such  a  practice  :"  "  it  inay  be  so  rendered 
without  the  least  violence  :"  "  yet  I  am  not  disposed  to 
urge  it.^'  With  regard  to  the  second  he  says,  "  But  as- 
suming the  ground,  that  the  evangelist  did  not  intend  to 
distinguish  a  total  bathing  from  a  partial  washing,  I  again 
inquire  did  he  distinguish  07ie  sort  of  partial  washing  from 
another  sort  of  partial  washing,  one  of  which  sorts  was 
performed  by  dipjmig  the  hands  into  water  1''^  And  yet, 
assuming  this  ground,  he  assumes  it  only  to  argue  :  he 
reaches  back  to  the  other,  and  reminds  us  again  that  he 
has  already  said  that  the  word  ^anjiawvTav  in  this  pas- 
sage, "may  without  any  violence"  be  considered  as 
distinguishing  a  total  immersion  from  a  washing  of  the 
hands.  Thus  he  will  venture  forward  to  argue  upon  one 
ground,  provided  he  may  keep  open  a  safe  retreat  to  the 
other.  How  firmly  he  may  feel  th§  ground  under  him 
may  be  inferred  by  his  evident  concern  to  keep  open  a 
retreat  to  the  ground  on  which,  alas^  he  is  afraid  to 
stand  ;  and  concerning  w^hich  he  admits  that  there  is  an 
"absence  of  clear,  satisfying  proof." 
5* 


106  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Standing  thus  with  hght  and  uncertain  tread  upon  both 
grounds,  he  is  compelled  to  make  the  Bible  give  an  un- 
certain sound  :  and  while  professing  to  fix,  the  sense  with 
critical  accuracy,  he  actually  proposes  to  make  it  read, 
in  both  passages,  with  an  alias.  After  the  word  "  baptize" 
(wash)  in  Mark  vii.  4  (which  he  would  read  "  imoaerse, 
or  bathe^'*)y  he  says,  "  The  word  hands  may  be  consider- 
ed as  understood,  or  the  word  themselves  may  be  under- 
stood." There  is  an  "  absence  of  clear  satisfying  proof" 
that  they  immersed  themselves ;  and  he  is  not  certain  that 
they  simply  immersed  their  hand^.  So  he  would  split 
the  difference  by  making  the  Bible  read  both  ways,  put 
ting  in  an  alias.  In  the  same  manner,  in  Luke  xi.  38, 
he  proposes  the  introduction  of  the  same  double  reading 
for  one  single  word.  "  And  when  the  Pharisee  saw  it,  he 
marvelled  that  he  had  not  first  washed  before  dinner  :  that 
he  had  not  first  immersed  ;  that  is,  himself,  or  his  hands." 

I  have  some  fault  to  find  with  Professor  Ripley's  criti- 
cism, on  the  score  of  grammatical  accuracy  ;  for  this, 
too,  it  appears  to  me,  he  has  sacrificed  on  the  altar  of  ex- 
clusive immersion. 

Says  Professor  Ripley,  ^'  The  verb  (^^anTLaoiviaL)  is  in 
the  middle  voice  ;  and  as  there  is  no  object  expressed 
after  it,  it  would  be  lawful^  in  order  to  express  the 
Greek,  to  employ,  as  Professor  Stuart  has,  the  word 
themselves  as  being  contained  in  the  verb  itself."  This 
is  correct,  save  that  instead  of  simply  being  lawful  to 
do  as  Professor  Stuart  has  done,  it  is  indispensable  to  do 
so,  unless  you  can  translate  it  by  an  English  word, 
which,  like  the  Greek  Middle  voice  of  a  transitive  verb, 
has  a  reflexive  sense,  implying  that  the  agent  is  himself 
both  the  subject  and  the  object  of  the  verb.     Thus,  if  we 


PROFESSOR    RIPLEY.  107 

say,  "  Except  they  wash?'' — the  meaning  is  except  they 
Wdish.  themselves  :  or  if  we  say,  "Except  they  bathe'*'' — the 
object  of  the  bathing  is  still  themselves.  But  in  what  fol- 
lows, it  appears  to  me  that  Professor  Ripley  is  most  pal- 
pably and  indefensibly  in  the  wrong.  He  says,  "  As  the 
verb  vitpoji'iac  (wash),  in  the  former  part  of  the  passage, 
has,  in  the  middle  voice,  an  object  (xeiQag — hands)  after 
it,  it  is  certainly  justifiable  to  maintain,  that  the  verb  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  passage  [SanTiucovxav)  has  the  same 
word  understood  after  it  for  its  object." 

Nov/ the  middle  voice  does,  indeed  admit  an  object 
after  it,  as  in  the  case  of  vixpcavxai,.  It  would  therefore 
have  been  justifiable  for  the  writer  to  have  placed  an 
object  after  ^aimaoiviai^ — had  his  meaning  allowed  it. 
But  when  the  writer  omits  the  object  in  such  a  case,  and 
the  meaning  of  the  word  is  still  reflexive,  the  subject  ot 
the  verb  is  its  implied  object.  When  the  waiter  in  such 
a  case  omits  to  express  another  object,  we  pervert  his 
meaning,  if  we  understand  or  supply  an  object  other  than 
the  one  implied  in  the  very  form,  of  the  verb, — which 
makes  its  object  identical  with  its  agent.  Thus  Professor 
Stuart  has  mostgrammatically  read  the  word  ^amiacovTai> 
(Baptisontai)  "they  wash  themselves.''^  And  it  certainly 
is  not  "justifiable;" — it  is  a  flagrant  violation  of  the 
rules  of  grammar,  to  supply,  as  Professor  Ripley  has 
done,  the  word  hands  instead  of  themselves. 

In  Luke  xi.  38,  the  word  is  in  the  passive  voice.  It 
not  only  has  not  the  word  "  hands"  after  it,  but  does 
not  admit  the  word  to  be  supplied  as  its  object.*     The 

*  Transmontanus  says  on  this,  "  Mr.  Hall  makes  a  display  of  his 
usual  grammatical  skill  and  accuracy.  Had  he  consulted  some 
grammar,  he  would  have  learned  that  there  is  a  well-known  Greek 


108  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

grammatical  rendering  is, "  that  he  had  not  been  baptized.''^ 
The  passage  in  Mark  vii.  4  shows  that,  under  such  cir-^ 
cumstances,  people  baptized  themselves  (they  did  it  for 
themselves  ;  they  were  not  baptized  by  others).  Hence, 
it  is  doing  justice  to  the  meaning,  to  say,  without  being 
tied  down  to  grammatical  nicety, — "  that  he  had  not  first 
washed^''''  or  "that  he  had  not  first  ivashed  himself.^^ 
This  does  not  change  the  object  concerning  w^hich  the 
baptism  is  affirmed.  But  to  supply  the  word  hands,  as 
Professor  Ripley  proposes,  is  to  take  an  unwarrantable 
license.  It  does  violence  to  the  crrammatical  construction, 
and  changes  the  object  of  the  affirmation.  It  is  quite  as 
gross  a  violation  of  grammatical  usage,  as  though  the 
passage  were  made  to  read  in  English,  "  That  he  had  not 
first  been  baptized  his  hands^"^  I  will  only  add,  that  the 
word  hands  is  not  in  this  passage,  or  near  it.     The  word 

construction,  generally  parsed  as  a  case  of  synecdoche,  in  which 
the  passive  has  an  accusative  after  it."     Mr.  Hall  certainly  knew 
that  very  well  5  and.  for  that  very  reason,  was  careful  to  say  that 
it  does  not  adnait  the  word  to  be  supplied  as  its  objecty 

He  knew  very  well,  too,  that  where  the  accusative  is  put,  hy 
synecdoche,  after  the  passive  voice,  it  limits  the  action  of  tlie  verb 
to  \\\ej)art  expressed  by  that  accusative.  If  the  writer  means  so 
to  limit  his  meaning,  he  always  supplies  the  accusative;  if  he 
■ices  not,  he  who  adds  that  accusative  alters  the  meaning  of  the 
Writer.  The  license  is  altogether  unwarrantable.  In  the  present 
case,  it  is  a  flagrant  alteration  of.  and  addition  to,  the  word  of 
God. 

*  Mr.  Carson  himself,  on  grammatical  grounds,  rejects  the  gloss 
of  those  who  would  supply  the  word  hands  in  this  passage  and  in 
Mark  vii.  4,  He  says,  p.  68,  "  When  no  part  is  mentioned  or 
excepted,  the  whole  body  is  always  meant."  Transmontanus  has 
several  ill-natured  flings,  p.  101,  &c.,  about  "a  new  grammar  of 
the  Greek  language."  There  is  no  necessity  for  a  new  grammar ; 
ne  only  needs  a  little  more  careful  study  of  some  old  one. 


MISSIONARY  TRANSLATIONS.  109 

baptize  used  alone  and  simply,  as  it  is  here  used  by  Luke, 
has  no  inherent  quality  by  which  it  should  be  thought 
to  be  limited  in  the  action  which  it  expresses  to  the 
hands  alone.  The  word  "  hands"  is  imported  through  the 
channel  of  commentary  ;  and  commentary  elaborated, 
as  I  think  I  have  shown,  by  a  process  of  bad  criticism. 

BAPTIST    MISSIONARY    TRANSLATIONS. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  claim  that  ^'  to  them  is  committed 
the  sole  guardianship  of  pure  and  faithful  translations  of 
the  oracles  of  God  into  the  languages  of  the  earth.'^'''^  I 
should  like  to  know  how  their  foreign  translations  of 
these  two  passages,  Marl*:  vii.  4,  and  Luke  xi.  38, 
read.  Do  they  make  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews 
immerse  themselves  as  often  as  they  come  from  the  mar- 
ket 1  or  do  they  make  them  simply  dip  their  hands  ? 
Which  of  these  two  acts  do  our  Baptist  brethren — "  the 
sole  guardians  of  pure  and  faithful  translations" — teach 
the  heathen  is  the  baptism  which  the  Holy  Ghost  speaks 
of  in  Mark  vii.  4]  Do  they  teach  the  heathen  to  be- 
lieve that  the  Pharisee  marvelled  that  the  Saviour  had 
not  immersed  himself  before  dinner ;  or  that  he  had  not 
dipped  his  hands  before  dinner  .''  Methinks  the  "  guardi- 
ans of  pure  and  faithful  translations"!  should  agree  in 

*  American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society  Report,  1S40,  p.  79. 

t  Says  Professor  Eaton,  in  liis  speech  before  the  Baptist  Bible 
Society  at  their  anniversary  (Report  of  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,  p.  79),  "  Never,  sir.  was  there  a  chord  struck  that 
vibrated  simultaneously  through  so  many  Baptist  hearts,  from 
one  extremity  of  the  land  to  the  other,  as  v\'hen  it  was  announced 
that  the  heathen  world  must  look  to  them  a  lon  E/or  an  imvcilcd  view  of 
the  glories  of  the  gospel  of  Christ."  "  A  deep  conviction  seized  the 
oiinds  oi  ahmsttJie  whole  body  that  they  were  divinelv  aisd  pecu- 


110  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

this  matter.  Infallibility  should  not  be  divided ;  and 
where  it  is  so,  the  division  shows  that  neither  party  is 
infallible.     The  truth  may  lie  on  neither  side. 

With  these  coadjutors  ;  Campbell  and  Woolsey  on  my 
right  hand,  and  Carson  and  Judd  on  my  left ;  I  should 
like  to  go  and  knock  at  the  door  of  the  Baptist  Foreign 
Missionary  establishments,  and  inquire — Brethren,  how 
do  you  translate  the  word  of  God  %  If  they  answer — 
We  make  the  Bible  say  that  the  Pharisees  and  all  the 
Jews  immerse  themselves  as  often  as  they  come  from  the 
market,  then  Campbell  and  Woolsey  shall  reply : — 
Brethren,  this  is  not  right,  you  make  the  word  of  God 
speak  falsehood.  If  the  missionaries  answer,  we  make 
the  Bible  say  that  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  dip 
their  hands  simply,  when  they  come  from  the  market ; 
then  the  brethren  on  my  left  shall  reply,  Carson  and 
Judd  shall  make  answer  ; — "  Brethren,  the  word  of  God 
says  that  the  Pharisees  and  all  the  Jews  immerse  them- 
selves^ before  eating,  as  often  as  they  come  from  the  mar- 
ket ;"  and  you  have  given  no  faithful  translation.  You 
have  corrupted  the  w^ord  of  God.  You  have  "  corrected 
and  altered  the  diction  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  From  the 
sword  of  the  brethren — either  of  those  on  my  right 
hand  or  of  those  on  my  left,  the  missionary  translators 
cannot  escape.  And  now  having  proved  the  missionary 
translation  unfaithful — the  brethren  on  my  right  and  the 

i^iARLY  SET  for  the  defence  and  dissemination  of  the  gospel,  as  de- 
livered to  men  by  its  Heavenly  Author.  A  new  zeal  in  their  Mas- 
ter's cause,  and  unwonted  kindlings  of  fraternal  love  glowed  in 
their  hearts ;  and  an  attracting  and  concentrating  movement, 
reaching  to.  the  utmost  extremity  of  the  mass,  began,  and  has 
been  going  on  and  increasing  in  power  ever  since." 


MISSIONARY  TRANSLATIONS.  Ill 

brethren  on  my  left  shall  turn  their  arms  agamst  each 
other.*  These  shall  demonstrate  that  those  have  made 
the  Bible  speak  falsehood ;  those  shall  demonstrate 
that  these  have  disguised  and  corrupted  the  word  of  God. 
Neither  can  resist  the  assault  of  the  other  ;  each  scheme 
is  certainly  and  totally  destroyed.  And  when  the  battle 
is  fought,  in  which  I  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  stand  still 
and  wait  the  issue — when  the  battle  is  fought,  till  each 
party  is  so  beaten  that  he  can  fight  no  longer  ;  J  would 
take  them  by  the  hand,  and  say.  Brethren,  abandon  the 
ground  on  which  you  must  mutually  destroy  each  other, 
or  else  fight  on  for  ever.     Do  you  not  see  that  each  is 

*  Professor  Eaton,  of  Hamilton  Baptist  Institute,  in  his  speech 
before  the  Baptist  Bible  Society,  at  their  anniversary  in  1840  [See 
Report  of  said  Society,  p.  74],  says,  "  The  translation"  of  the  Bap- 
tist Missionaries  "  is  so  undeniably  correct,"  that  its  incorrectness 
could  not  be  '•  pretended,"  "  without  committing  the  objectO}-^s  charac- 
ter for  scholarship  and  candor.'"  "  Who  are  they,  sir,"  said  he, 
'  who  cavil  upon  the  plain  meaning  of  the  original  word  whose 
translation  is  so  offensive  ?  Are  they  the  Porsons,  and  the 
Campbells,  and  the  Greenfields,  and  such  like  ■?"  "  No,  sir," — "  But 
the  cavillers,  sir,  are  men  who,  whatever  maybe  their  standing  in 
other  respects,  have  no  reputation  as  linguists  and  philologists  to  lose. 
There  really  can  be  no  rational  doubt  in  the  mind  of  any  sound  and 
candid  Greek  scholar,  about  the  evident  meaning  of  the  icords  in 
question.  I  venture  to  say,  at  the  risk  of  the  little  reputation  for 
Greek  scholarship  which  I  possess,  that  there  are  no  words  of  plainer 
import  in  the  Bible.  The  profane  tampering  which  has  been 
applied  to  these  words,"  &c.  &c. 

I  shall  not  dispute  here,  that  all  this  may  be  very  modest  and 
catholic.  It  is  at  least  such  matter  as  the  American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society  are  willing  to  append  to  their  report  and  publish  to 
the  world.  But  I  should  like  to  see  which  side  Professor  Eaton 
would  take  amid  these  combatants  ;  and  in  what  plight  he  would 
Stand  when  the  battle  is  over,  take  which  side  he  would. 


112  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

defenceless  in  his  own  position ;  and  irresistible  when  he 
attacks  that  of  the  other  1  Between  you  both  the  truth 
comes  out  clear  ;  that  baptism  is  not  necessarily  immer- 
sion ;  and  that  while  you  endeavor  to  make  it  so,  you 
are  on  the  one  hand  compelled  to  make  the  Bible  speak 
falsehood,  and  on  the  other,  to  alter  and  corrupt  the 
word  of  God. 

And  what  shall  they  do  1  Shall  they  make  peace  on 
the  only  rational  ground  1  Or  shall  one  yield  his  judg- 
ment to  the  other,  and  vote  that  one  opinion  to  be  infalli- 
ble 1  Or,  for  the  sake  of  saving  the  Baptist  cause,  shall 
they  strike  hands  and  be  made  friends  :  agreeing,  on  the 
one  party,  to  allow  the  Bible  to  speak  falsehood,  provided 
it  may  only  speak  immersion  ;  and  agreeing,  on  the  other 
party,  provided  immersion  may  be  retained,  to  admit  the 
word  of  God  to  be  altered,  and  disguised,  and  corrupted, 
by  "  an  ingenious  conceit,  without  any  authority  from  the 
practice  of  the  language"  in  which  the  New  Testament 
was  written  % 

I  would  respectfully  ask  our  Baptist  brethren  to  look 
'nto  this  matter.  I  would  respectfully  call  their  attention 
3  the  necessity  laid  upon  them  in  their  present  position, 
of  falling  upon  one  of  the  three  points  of  the  alternative, 
which  here  presents  itself  to  them.  With  their  present 
disagreement,  in  which  a  part  of  them  side  with  Carson 
and  Judd,  and  a  part  w^ith  Campbell  and  Woolsey,  it  is 
impossible  for  them  to  give  a  faithful  translation,  on  the 
Baptist  principle,  without  entering  into  a  compromise, 
which  shall  either  make  the  Bible  speak  falsehood,  or  else 
alter  and  pervert  the  sacred  diction  of  the  word  of  God. 
I  would  respectfully  suggest  to  the  brethren  of  each  of 
these  two  parties,  the  necessity  of  looking  into  these 


THE    SCRIPTURAL    IDEA.  113 

foreign  translations  ;  and  of  taking  heed,  lest  in  their 
zeal  to  maintain  immersion,  they  unconsciously  fall  into 
such  a  compromise  as  this.  It  surely  becomes  them  to 
whom  "  is  committed  the  sole  guardianship  of  pure  and 
faithful  translations  of  the  oracles  of  God,  into  the 
languages  of  the  earth,"  to  be  careful  and  uncompromis- 
ing here. 

SCRIPTURAL    IDEA    OF    BAPTISM. 

For  giving  a  definition  to  ''  baptize"  which  shall  refer 
to  the  intent  and  the  import,  and  omit  all  reference  to  the 
mode — a  definition  which  shall  express  the  substance  of 
baptism  with  no  reference  to  the  circumstance, — we  have 
the  soundest  warrant  and  the  most  explicit  example  in 
the  word  of  God.  Thus  :  Jesus,  with  his  disciples,  was 
baptizing  in  Judea  ;  John  in  Enon  (John  iii  22-26).  A 
question  arose  between  some  of  John's  disciples  and  the 
Jevv's  '*«&o?^?  PFRiFYiNG."  To  Settle  it,  they  come  and 
refer  it  to  John  under  the  shape  of  a  question  about  bap- 
tizing. Their  minds  fastened  on  the  substance,  rot  on 
the  circumstance.  Their  idea  of  baptism  was  not  the 
modern  Baptist  idea.  Baptism,  with  them,  was  not  an 
immersing  but  a  purifying.  Their  question  is  about  bap- 
tizing ;  but  it  is  not  about  dipping,  or  sprinkling,  or 
pouring,  or  immersing,  but  about  purifying  :  and  they 
state  the  question  to  John  as  a  question  about  baptizing. 
In  their  view  the  words  "  baptize"  and  *-purify"  are  so  far 
synonymous,  that  in  a  debate  about  purifying  they  may 
use  either  the  word  purify  or  the  M^ord  baptize.  But 
with  them  the  word  purify  could  not  be  synonymous 
with  immerse  ;  for  their  common  purifications  of  persons 
were  either  in  the  general  mode  of  ivashing,  or  in '  the 


114  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

particular  mode  of  sprinklin^^ — never  necessarily  in  the 
mode  of  immersing. 

So  again  in  Mark  vii.  4,  there  is  a  talk  about  baptizing  ; 
and  whatever  was  done,  Mr.  Woolsey  justly  maintains 
was  done  by  the  use  of  the  "  water-pots."  But  John  ii. 
6  speaks  of  these  water-pots  as  set  ^'  after  the  manner  of 
the  PURIFYING  of  the  Jews.  Here,  too,  baptism  is  not  an 
immersion  in  fact  ;  much  less  in  the  idea.  The  idea  of 
baptism  here  is  not  a  mere  mode  of  applying  water — 
certainly  not  the  mode  of  immersion, — but  a   purifying. 

So  again  in  Luke  xi.  38,  39,  upon  the  Pharisee's  won- 
dering that  Jesus  had  not  been  baptized  before  dinner, 
our  Lord  took  occasion  to  say  to  him,  "  Ye  Pharisees 
make  clean  (in  the  original,  purify)  the  outside." 
Here  neither  the  Saviour  nor  the  Pharisee  considered  the 
essence  of  the  baptism  as  lying  in  the  mode,  but  in  the 
intent  and  in  the  effect.  Baptism,  in  their  view,  was  a 
washing  or  purifying. 

So  again  in  the  Apocrypha,  Judith  xii.  7,  it  is  said  that 
Judith  went  out  into  the  valley  of  Bethulia  and  washed 
(Sept.  baptized  herself )  in  the  camp  (^e-n-v  rrig  Tttjyrig)  at 
(not  in)  a  fountain  of  water  in  the  camp.  The  context 
shows  that  the  object  of  this  baptizing  was  to  remove  a 
ceremonial  uncleanness.  *'  She  without  doubt  strictly 
obeyed  the  law,  and  did  what  the  law  intended  that  she 
should  do.  But  the  law  in  such  cases  simply  command- 
ed washing  (Lev.  xv.'").  The  narrator  does  not  intend  to 
signify  that  she  went  beyond  the  law,  but  that  she  observ- 
ed it :  and  in  his  view  ivash  is  synonymous  with  baptize 
in  denoting  a  religious  ordinance — a  ceremonial  purifi- 
cation.. 

»  o  'n  Ecclesiasticus  xxiv.  25,  the  words  baptize  and 


THE    SCRIPTURAL  IDEA. 


115 


wash  are  used  interchangeably  as  purely  synonymous  : — 
"  He  that  haptizeth  himself  after  the  touching  of  a  dead 
body,  what  availeth  his  VMshing  ?"  The  allusion  is  to 
Numbers  xix.  11,  &c.,  where  the  law  simply  required 
washing,  or  purifying.  The  essential  thing  in  that  puri- 
fying was  performed  by  sprinkling  ;  and  of  him  who 
should  fail  in  this,  it  was  said,  "  because  the  water  of 
separation  was  not  sprinkled  upon  him,  he  shall  be  unclean  ; 
his  uncleanness  is  yet  upon  him." 

If  we  therefore  follow  the  Scripture  pattern,  or  the 
pattern  of  the  Greek  of  the  Apocrypha,  in  fixing  the  pro- 
per idea  of  the  word  '^  baptize''  as  used  to  denote  the  sa- 
cred use  of  water  in  a  religious  ordinance,  we  shall  entirely 
omit  all  reference  to  mode,  and  fix  our  thoughts  upon  the 
intent  and  the  effect  of  baptism  ;  the  substance  and  not 
the  shadow.  Baptism  will  not  be  a  dipping,  or  an  im- 
mersing, or  a  pouring,  or  a  sprinkling,  but  a  washing,  a 

PURIFYING. 

The  word  being  thus  used  in  the  New  Testament,  to 
denote  a  ritual  washing  or  purifying  (which  it  never  sig- 
nified in  classic  Greek)  ;  being  used  moreover  where 
the  MODE  of  purifying  was  either  sprinkling  or  pouring  ; 
and  being,  still  further,  so  used  that  to  make  it  read  im- 
merse would  make  the  Bible  speak  what  confessedly  is 
not  true  ;  I  think  we  have  clearly, — and  established  be- 
yond the  possibility  of  a  successful  denial, — a  generic  and 
peculiar  New  Testament  use  of  the  word ;  in  which  use 
baptize  primarily  denotes  a  ritual  purifying  by  some  man- 
ner of  application  of  water,  which  is  called  "  the  washing 
of  water  ;"  and  secondarily  it  denctes  an  invmrd purifying 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  called  "  the  washing  of  regeneration.''^ 

These  things  being  so,  how  idle  it  is  for  our  Baptist 


116  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Brethren  to  ask,  as  they  often  do,  "  If  any  application  of 
water,  washing ,  sprinkling^  pouring,  &c.,  means  baptism, 
why  did  not  the  sacred  writers  sometimes  use  the  Greek 
word  which  means  to  wash,  sprinkle,  and  pour  1" 
The  reason  is  plain  : 

1.  Baptize  is  used  with  a  peculiar  but  generic  reference 
to  this  purifying,  without  any  refei-ence  to  mode.  But 
the  words  "  sprinkle"  and  "  pour"  are  not  so  used.  Their 
use,  in  the  New  Testament,  is  not  hmited  to  the  sacred 
use  of  water  ;  and  they  refer  to  a  mode  ;  while  the  word 
baptize  in  the  New  Testament  refers  to  none.  They  can- 
not therefore  be  interchanged  with  "  baptize"  as  though 
they  were  synonymous  with  it.  The  word  "  wash"  is  so 
interchanged,  because  it  so  far  accords  with  baptize  as  not 
to  refer  to  any  particular  mode. 

2.  It  is  not  true  that  the  words,  wash,  sprinkle,  pour, 
are  not  used  in  the  New  Testament  with  reference  to 
baptism.  As  often  as  anything  is  said  in  the  New 
Testament  in  allusion  to  a  mode  of  baptism,  these  words 
are  invariably  used.  As  to  the  word  wash,  the  Scriptures 
refer  to  baptism  as  the  "washing  of  water  ;"  and  the 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  call  "  the  washing  of  re- 
generation.  As  to  the  word  sprinkle,  the  prophets  describe 
the  purifying  which  they  foretell,  as  a  sprinkling  :  "  so 
shall  he  sprinkle  many  nations :"  "  Then  will  I  sprinkle 
clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean."  As  to  the 
word  pour,  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  baptizing  is  spoken  ot 
as  a  pouring,  a  shedding  forth,  b.  falling  vpmi.  But  where 
do  you  read  of  the  immersing  of  (with)  "  vxifer,''^  or  of  the 
immersing  of  many  "  nations,"  or  of  the  immersing  ot 
regeneration,"  or  of  the  immersing  of  (in)  the  blood  ot 
Christ  1"  Nowhere  in  the  word  of  God  :  nowhere,  even  in 


TRANSLATING  THE  WORD.  117 

figure.  The  very  idea  is  strange  and  preposterous.  We 
may  retort  the  question,  if  it  be  so,  that  baptism  is  nothing 
but  immersion,  and  that  immersion  is  all-essential  to  it ; 
why  is  it  that  we  never  read  of  the  immersion  of  "regene- 
ration"— or  of  a  promise,  then  I  will  immerse  you  in 
"clean  water  and  ye  shall  be  clean  ;" — or  of  the  immersion 
of  the  blood  of  Christ? 

VII.  TRANSLATING  THE  WORD  "  BAPTIZE." 

Our  English  translators  employed  the  words  baptize 
and  baptism^  which  had  been  for  ages  in  common  use,  to 
denote  the  ordinance,  and  which  had  become  vernacular 
in  the  English  tongue.  Of  Greek  origin  these  words 
undoubtedly  were,  but  they  were  as  well  understood  as 
the  words  geography,  astronomy,  biography,  rhetoric, 
grammar,  and  history,  are  now  ;  which  are  as  truly  of 
Greek  original,  and  as  purely  Greek,  as  the  words  bap- 
tize and  baptism.  I  have  proved,  as  I  think,  with  re- 
gard to  some  passages,  that  immerse  could  not  have  been 
the  sense  of  baptize,  and  that  the  word  could  not  have 
been  so  translated  consistently  with  truth.  But  had 
such  been  its  meaning,  the  word  immerse  could  not  have 
been  better  understood  than  the  word  baptize.  Immerse 
is  as  purely  Latin  as  baptize  is  Greek.  Baptize  became 
an  English  word  as  soon  as  the  Gospel  was  preached  in 
England  ;  and  our  Baptist  brethren  contend  that  bap- 
tism was  then  performed  by  immersion.  Had  this  been 
the  case,  and  had  the  old  Britons  been  taught  to  consider 
immersion  the  essence  of  baptism,  the  word  baptism  in 
their  language  would  have  signified  immersion  ;  and 
the  Greek  word  baptize  would  have  as  truly  expressed 
he  idea  as  the  Latin  word  immerse.     At  all  events,  as 


118  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

our  Baptist  brethren  claim  that  the  Gospel  was  first 
preached  in  Britain  by  immersers,  and  that  immersion 
was  the  exclusive  mode  of  baptism  till  near  the  time  our 
translation  was  made,  they  ought  for  very  shame  to  give 
over  their  abuse  of  our  English  translators  as  though  they 
had  transferred  the  word  instead  of  translating  it.  Either 
the  claims  of  our  Baptist  brethren  are  idle  and  false,  or 
the  transferring  was  done  by  immersers  ;  and  then  their 
accusations  against  Pedo-baptists,  as  though  they  had 
transferred  the  word  baptize  for  the  purpose  of  "  conceal- 
ing its  true  import,"  are  idle  and  false.  Our  Baptist 
brethren  may  choose  which  horn  of  the  dilemma  they 
will  :  either  their  claims  are  idle  and  false,  or  their  ac- 
cusations are  idle  and  false.  The  word  was,  indeed, 
originally  transferred  into  our  language  :  but  our  English 
translators  did  not  make  the  transfer ;  they  gave  a  proper 
translation — employing  the  very  word  that  had  been  ex- 
clusively employed  to  denote  the  ordinance,  ever  since 
the  day  that  the  Christian  religion  was  first  planted  in 
their  native  land.  Baptize  was  then  as  much  an  Eng- 
lish word  as  almost  any  word  in  the  English  language, 
most  of  the  words  having  been  as  much  derived  from  a 
foreign  source  as  the  word  baptize. 

But  neither  of  the  words,  immerse,  sprinkle,  pour,  nor 
any  other  word  that  relates  merely  to  the  mode  of  the 
ordinance,  could  express  the  idea  of  baptism.  Baptism  is 
a  sacred  ritCj  of  peculiar  signification  and  design.  What- 
ever be  the  inode  of  performing  it,  such  a  7node  of  apply- 
ing water  may  be  a  very  familiar  thing  with  any  people 
on  earth.  Such  things  as  dipping,  immersing,  sprinkling 
and  pouring,  are  very  common  amons:  all  nations  wher- 
ever there  is  water  ;  and  of  course  every  language  mus+ 


TRANSLATING  THE   WORD.  119 

have  a  word  for  each  of  these  things.  But  certainly  it 
will  not  be  contended  that  all  heathen  nations  are  in  the 
habit  of  performing  such  a  thing  as  a  Christian  baptism. 
in  the  Christian  sense.  The  Baptists  do  not  consider 
every  immersion  a  baptism^  in  the  Christian  sense.  li 
they  do,  then,  so  far  as  baptism  is  concerned,  they  musi 
hold  communion  with  every  man  who  accidentally  fall? 
overboard  ;  if  they  do  not,  then  they  do  not  considei 
immersion  as  equivalent  to  baptism  ;  and  it  is  idle  to  pre- 
tend that  the  ivord  baptism  is  equivalent  to  the  word  im 
merse,  or  that  immerse  is  an  adequate  or  faithful  trans- 
lation of  the  word  baptize.  On  our  part  we  do  not  hold 
every  man  baptized  who  has  been  accidentally  sprinkled 
in  a  shower.  We  cannot  therefore  claim  that  the  word 
baptize  is  equivalent  to  the  word  sprinkle  :  and  do  not 
consider  the  word  sprinkle  or  the  word  pour  as  a  proper 
translation  of  the  word  baptize.*     No  word  which  ex- 

*  Our  Baptist  brethren  are  fond  of  making  a  representation 
touching  this  matter,  which  is  very  plausible  and  captivating  to 
ignorant  and  unreflecting  minds  ;  but  nothing  can  be  more  dis- 
ingenuous in  the  estimation  of  those  who  understand  the  subject. 
Thus,  Mr.  Woolsey,  p.  211,  endeavors  to  show  what  "eifort"  we 
make  "  to  get  around  the  plain  instruction  of  the  apostle"  in  Rom 
vi.  4,  by  insinuating  that  we  would  have  it  read, — or  take  ground 
which  requires  us  to  read — "  Buried  with  him  by  sprinkling.'' 
The  Baptist  Bible  Society  is  equally  disingenuous  and  injurious 
— not  only  with  regard  to  us,  but  with  regard  to  the  truth  in  this 
matter.  Thus,  in  the  Appendix  to  the  Report  for  1840,  p.  52,  thejr 
sa)"-,  "  If  a  Pedo-baptist  translator  conscientiously  believes  that 
sprinkling  or  pouring  is  the  meaning  of  baptizo,  let  him  thus 
render  the  word."  The  reader  cannot  fail,  I  think,  to  see  the 
fallacy  and  disingenuousness  of  such  an  argument,  and  such 
a  mode  of  representing  Pedo-baptist  views.  Our  brethren 
represent  us  as  holding  what  I  think  they  must  know  we  do 


120  LAW   OF  BAPTISM. 

presses  simply  a  mode  of  applying  water  can  fill  up  the 
idea  of  the  word  baptizo  ;  and  any  word  which  limits  the 
application  to  any  one  mode  is  an  arrant  perversion  of  the 
Scriptures :  which  expressly  speak  of  baptism  under 
two  modes,  sprinkling  and  pouring  ;  and  refer  to  it  again 
and  again  under  the  more  general  idea  of  a  purifying^  or 
a  washing.  The  mode  immerse  is  the  very  one  which 
finds  the  least  countenance  in  the  word  of  God  :  if,  indeed, 
there  is  any  unquestionable  authority  for  that  mode, 
aside  from  its  being  one  of  the  modes  of  washing  or 
purifying. 

In  translating  the  word  baptize,  therefore,  we  must 
have  a  word  which  possesses  two  qualities  :  1st,  It 
must  denote  a  sacred  application  of  water  in  a  ritual 
purifying :  2d,  It  must  not  limit  the  application  to  any 
one  mode.  To  wash  or  to  purify^  comes  nearer  the 
true  idea,  than  either  of  the  words,  sprinkle  or  immerse  ; 
and  they  are  the  only  words  which  can  be  employed 
with  exclusive  reference  to  a  mode  of  baptizing,  consist- 
ently with  the  truth  of  the  Bible.  Yet  neither  wash^  nor 
purify^  has  the  exact  and  full  signification,  by  the  com- 
mon acceptation  of  these  terms.  To  vmsh  did  not  origi- 
nally, in  our  language,  mean  a  ritual  piirijication,  much 
less  did  immerse  have  that  meaning  ;  and  to  purify  does 
not  in  the  common  use  of  our  language  signify  necessarily 
an  application  of  water.      We    may   use  them,  with  a 

not  hold  ;  viz.  that  baptize  in  the  New  Testament  signifies  a  mode 
of  applying  water ;  is  synonymous  with  the  word  sprinkle  ;  and 
ran  be  adequately  and  truly  translated  by  the  term  sprinkle. 
Assuming  that  we  maintain  this,  and  so  representing  us,  they 
endeavor  to  show  the  absurdity  ofsuch  ground ;  and  then, — "  cover- 
ng  up  and  concealing"  our  real  views, — they  endeavor  to 
ij-aws/er"  that  absurdity  to  our  account. 


TFwANSLATING   THE  WORD.  121 

modification  of  their  common  meaning  ;  and  the  connec- 
tion will  show  in  what  sense  they  are  used.  But  after 
all,  when  the  new  idea  of  baptism  came  into  the  minds 
of  the  old  Britons,  they  needed  either  a  new  word,  or  a 
new  adaptation  of  an  old  word  to  express  that  idea. 
They  wanted  a  term  which  should  express  a  ritual 
purifying  by  some  manner  of  sacred  application  of  water  : 
and  it  mattered  not  w^hal  word  they  employed,  nor  from 
what  source  it  was  derived,  provided  they  might  agree 
respecting  what  word  should  express  the  idea.  To  illus- 
trate this, — in  the  South  Sea  Islands,  they  had  no  know^- 
ledge  of  such  a  thing  as  a  horse  ;  and  of  course  no  word 
for  horse.  But  in  translating  the  Bible  for  them,  it  was 
necessary  to  find  something  to  substitute  for  the  word 
horse.  The  animal  might  have  been  described  by  a 
long  circumlocution,  by  the  use  of  words  already  exist- 
ing in  their  language  ;  but  this  would  not  do  ;  the  word 
must  be  translated.  How  could  this  be  done,  as  the 
natives  had  no  word  for  horse?  The  Missionaries  made 
a  word  for  them.  The  Greek  word  for  horse  is  Hippos, 
and  by  leaving  off  the  last  letter,  the  word  would  conform 
in  shape  and  sound  to  the  structure  of  native  words  much 
better  than  the  English  word  horse,  and  quite  as  well  as 
any  other  combination  of  sounds  that  might  be  invented. 
So  the  Missionaries  translated  the  word  horse  by  the 
word  *'  Hippoy"^     But  this  word  would  need   explana- 

*  The  Missionaries  at  the  Sandwich  Islands  found  the  Hawaiian 
language  so  copious  that  they  were  not  under  the  necessity  of  in- 
troducing a  great  number  of  foreign  words,  except  proper  names. 
"  AVe  have,  however,"  say  they,  "adopted  Ekalesia  for  church, 
bapetiso  for  baptize,  bapetiso  for  baptism,  bapetite  for  baptist, 
lepero  for  leper,  aeto  for  eagle,  alopeke  for  fox,  bereria  for  bread, 
6 


122  LA.W  OF  BAPTISM. 

tion.  Grant  it.  And  so  has  the  word  baptizo  to  be  ex- 
plained by  Baptist  translators,  and  they  explain  it  to 
mean, — most  erroneously  as  we  believe, — immersion, 

NO  NEW  THING    TO  TRANSFER  PECULIAR  WORDS    FROM  ONE 
LANGUAGE  TO  ANOTHER. 

This  transferring  of  words  from  one  language  to  ano- 
ther is  not  so  uncommon  a  process  as  many  of  our  breth- 
ren seem  to  suppose  it.  What  English  word  shall  be 
substituted  for  the  Greek  word  "  Tetrarchj^^  in  Luke  iii. 
1 1  What  for  the  Greek  word  "  Pentecost j^''  in  Acts  ii. 
1 1  What  for  the  Greek  words  "  Christ''  and  "  Chris- 
tians?'^ '' Christ"  signifies  anointed;  and  so  does  the 
Hebrew  *'  Messiah.''  But  to  translate  the  word,  in  all 
cases,  on  the  principle  contended  for  by  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren, would  confound  and  destroy  the  meaning  of  many 
passages  of  Scripture.  The  word  is  applied  by  way  of 
eminence,  as  an  appellation,  to  the  promised  Redeem- 
er. In  Matt.  i.  1,  18,  and  Mark  i.,  as  often  elsewhere, 
our  Lord  is  called,  not  "  Jesus  the  Christ,"  but  "Jesus 
Christ :  "  As  George  Campbell  well  says  (D.  V.,  Part 
4),  "  Though  the  word  Anointed  expresses  the  primitive 
import  of  the  Hebrew  name,  it  does  not  convey  the  idea 
in  which  it  was  then  miiversallij  understood.  It  was  con- 
sidered solely  as  the  well-known  title  of  an  extraordinary 
office,  to  which  there  was  nothing  sim^lar  among  the 
people."     That  the  word  Christ  has  this  peculiar  mean- 

enemi  for  enemy,  himeni  for  hymn,  halelu  for  psalm,  and  a  few 
other  foreign  words,  most  of  which  are  well  established  and 
familiar  to  common  readers." — {Report  of  the  ^meriran  Bible  Society^ 
1837.)  The  classical  and  Biblical  scholar  will  a*  once  recogni;'* 
the  origin  of  most  of  these  words. 


TRANSFERRING  THE  WORD.  123 

ing  when  applied  to  the  Saviour,  may  be  seen  at  once, 
by  applying  the  word,  in  its  Enghsh  sense,  to  other  per- 
sonages, who  are  often  spoken  of  by  the  same  original 
words,  both  in  Hebrew  and  Greek.  How  would  it 
sound  to  hear  David  speaking  of  Saul,  as  in  1  Sam.  xxiv. 
6,  repeatedly  call  that  wicked  king  the  "  Christ  of  the 
Lord  1  "  How  would  it  sound  in  Isa.  xlv.l,  to  hear  the 
Lord  speaking  to  Cyrus,  as  to  his  "  Christ  ?  "  or,  in 
Psalm  cv.,  "  Touch  not  my  Christs  ?  "  Here  the  sense 
as  imperatively  demands  that  the  word  be  translated  ac- 
cording to  its  original  import,  as  other  passages  do  that 
it  should  not  be  translated  but  transferred. 

I  suppose  it  would  be  lawful  to  talk  to  the  Hindoos, 
or  the  Burmans,  about  the  Jewish  "  Synagogues ; " 
though  that  too  is  a  word  of  Greek  origin.  If  any  hea- 
then have  no  term  for  such  beings  as  devils^  I  suppose  it 
would  be  lawful  to  introduce  to  them  such  words  as  the 
Greek  Diabolos,  or  the  English  word  devil.  It  would 
be  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  you  introduce  to  them 
our  Hebraic  English  word  "  Sabbath,^'  and  teach  them 
its  meaning  ;  or  teach  them  how  to  use  one  of  their 
own  old  words  with  a  new  meaning.  The  volume  of 
God's  word  might  retain  its  Greek-English  name  Biblc^ 
or  it  mio-ht  be  turned  into  the  words  vernacular  amono- 
the  heathen,  for  "  writings,"  or  for  ^'  The  Book  ;  "  only 
teaching  them  to  give  a  new  idea  to  their  common  words. 
Such  words  as  "  Jubilee,''''  "  homer,''''  "  ephah,'*^  "  shekel,^'' 
"  cherubim,''''  might  be  transferred,  or  old  words  selected, 
and  taught  to  bear  a  meaning  not  originally  their  own, 
as  should  be  found  most  convenient.  A  scholar,  dealing 
in  profane  literature  only,  in  translating  from  the  ancient 
Greek  writers,  or   from  Cicero  or   Tacitus,  might   find 


124  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

himself  compelled,  either  to  give  erroneous  ideas,  or  to 
transfer  into  Burmese,  or  Japanese,  such  words  as 
"  Archon;' ''  Consul,''  ''FrcBtor,''  "  Questor,''  '•  Censor,'' 
"  Senator,"  "  Dictator,"  "  Tribune."  "  Who,"  says 
Campbell,  '^  considers  these  names"  (as  transferred  into 
our  language)  "  as  barbarous  1"  "To  have  employed 
instead  of  them,  '  Alderman,'  '  Sheriff,'  &c.,  we  should 
have  justly  thought  much  more  exceptionable."  "  I 
have  heard,"  says  he,  "  of  a  Dutch  translator  of  Csesar's 
Commentaries,  who  always  rendered  consul,  burgomas- 
ter;  and  in  the  same  taste,  all  the  other  officers  and 
magistrates  of  Rome."  How  could  we  have  translated 
the  Latin  classics,  and  given  the  true  idea,  unless  we  had 
naturalized,  in  such  cases,  the  very  Latin  words,  and 
learned  the  ideas  and  the  names  together  1  Where 
would  have  been  our  English  ideas  of  such  a  thing  as  a 
"  libation,"  an  "  ovation,"  a  "  lustration,"  had  we  not  im- 
ported, not  only  the  names,  but  the  very  ideas,  from  the 
Ian2;ua2;e  and  customs  of  heathenism  1  Whence  comes 
our  English  word  "  triumph  ?"  Whence  comes  the  now 
English  words,  "  Sultan,"  "  Pacha,"  "  Khan,"  "  Bey  1" 
What  limit  is  there  to  the  transferring  of  the  very  words 
of  the  people  who  bring  us  new  things  and  new  ideas  1 
Look  at  our  military  terms  :  almost  all  adopted  and  trans- 
ferred from  the  French.  Look  at  our  terms  of  chemistry, 
botany,  and.zoology :  how  many  of  them  have  been  re- 
cently compounded  from  the  Greek  1 

Now,  unless  Baptism  is  already  in  use  among  the  hea- 
then, as  a  RELIGIOUS  PURIFICATION,  and  expressed  by  a 
w^ord  of  their  own,  having  this  precise  idea,  in  distinction 
from  the  idea  of  any  simple  mode  of  administering  water, 
or  at  least  in  addition  to  such  an  idea  of  mode,  it  must  be 


125 

as  inadequate  and  inaccurate  a  translation  which  shall 
use  an  old  word  of  theirs,  referring  simply  to  the  mode  of 
applying  water,  as  it  would  be  to  turn  the  Roman  "  Con- 
SM/"into  a  Dutch  ^^  Burgomaster."^^  The  translation  is 
inadequate  ;  it  is  incorrect ;  it  misleads ;  and  that  aside 
from  the  consideration  that  to  translate  Baptize^  immerse^ 
makes  the  Bible  speak  falsehood,  even  with  regard  to  the 
mere  mode.  You  may  transfer  the  word  Baptize  ;  you 
may  call  Baptism,  in  Siamese  (as  the  Baptist  Bible  So- 
ciety say  our  missionaries  have  done),  "  Baptectsamayy^^ 
— conforming  the  shape  of  the  word  to  the  genius  of  the 
language,  as  in  the  Latin  Baptizare,  and  the  English 
Baptize ;  and  it  is  correct.  It  is  as  easy  to  teach  them 
the  new  word  as  it  is  to  teach  them  the  new  idea — the 
positive  and  peculiar  Scripture  idea  of  Baptize.  Or  you 
may  translate  baptize  into  a  word  signifying  to  wash  ; 
tstiil  better,  if  you  can  find  a  word  which  signifies  a 
ritual  purifying  by  washing  ;  and  you  have  given  a  most 
faithful  translation.  But  to  translate  the  word  by  the 
word  immerse^  is  to  give  an  inadequate,  inaccurate,  and, 
as  we  contend,  a/a/^eidea. 

MARTIN    LUTHER's    VERSION. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  claim  that  Luther  translated  bap- 
tize by  the  word  dip  or  immerse.     Thus  : 

Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  74,  "  Luther,  one  of  the  great 
reformers,  gave  the  Bible  translated  to  the  Germans,  that 
they  might  read  in  their  own  language,  the  wonderful 
works  of  God ;  and  he  rendered  baptize  into  a  word  sio-- 
nifyingto  immerse."  Again  he  says,  p.  138,  "  or  as  Lu- 
ther, the  great  reformer,  renders  it  in  his  German  Testa- 
ment," Johannes  der  Taufer, — "John  tfce  Dipper." 


126  LAW  OF   BAPTISM. 

So  the  Baptist  Bible  Society  in  their  report  for  1S40, 
p.  S9,  say,  "  Other  translators  may  do  as  they  please  ; 
Baptize  may  be  twisted  into  all  sorts  of  meanings  except 
immersion — unless  indeed  in  the  case  of  old  versions. 
Luther  may  say  that  it  means  to  immerse,  and  his  version 
shall  continue  to  be  circulated  ;  but  wo  be  to  the  Bap- 
tists if  they  say  so  ;  and  what  is  the  reason  1" 

Mr.  Woolsey  compliments  Luther,  as  "  this  bold  de- 
fender of  the  inalienable  right  of  every  man  to  become 
personally  acquainted  with  the  truths  of  the  Bible  faith- 
fully TRANSLATED  iuto  his  own  vemacular  tongue." 

We  all  agree  with  Mr.  Woolsey  in  venerating  the 
courage,  the  honesty,  and  the  piety  of  Martin  Luther. 
But  is  Mr.  Woolsey  ignorant  that  the  Germans  and  all 
Lutherans  who  use  his  translation  baptize  by  sprinkling, 
as  Luther  practised  and  as  Luther  taught  them  1  When 
a  German  minister  takes  water  in  his  hand  and  sprinkles 
or  pours  it  on  the  person  baptized,  saying,  "  Ich  taufe 
DiCH,"  does  he  mean  I  immerse  you?  Do  the  people 
so  understand  him  ?  Most  certainly  not.  When  Martin 
Luther  took  water  in  his  hand,  and  poured  or  sprinkled  it 
on  the  head  of  a  person,  saying,  "  Ich  taufe  dich^''''  did 
he  mean  "  I  immerse  you  .^"  Would  the  people  so  un- 
derstand him  %  It  is  impossible.  Luther  could  never 
have  used  that  word  in  connection  with  such  an  action, 
had  it  in  his  day  been  equivalent  to  immerse.  The  words 
Taufen  and  Taufer^  which  Mr.  Woolsey  and  the  Baptist 
Bible  Society  translate  ''  immerse"  and  "  dipper,"  mean 
no  such  thing.  They  are  used  in  German  with  specific 
and  exclusive  reference  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  which 
the  Germans  perform  by  sprinkling  or  affusion. 

Thus,  the  English  and  German  Dictionary  by  jP.  A. 


127 

Weber,  of  acknowledged  and  unquestionable  authority, 
gives  the  following  definitions  of  the  words  in  question. 
I  copy  from  the  Leipzic  Edition  of  1833,  by  Tauchnitz : 

"  Taufe,  baptism,  christening. 

Taufen,  to  baptize,  to  christen. 

Taufer,  baptizer,  baptist, 

Taujling,  person  baptized. 

Taufname,  Christian  name. 

Taitfcleiny  certificate  from  the  church  register." 

The  same  dictionary  gives  the  following  German  words 
for  the  English  words,  immerge,  immerse,  and  immersion. 
It  will  be  seen  that  Taufen  is  not  among  them. 

"  Immerge,  eintauchen,  versunken,  vertiefen. 

Immerse,  eintauchen,  untertauchen,  vertiefen. 

Immersion,  untertauchung,  versunkung." 

BuRCKHARDT,  in  his  German  and  English  Lexicon  (ed. 
Berlin,  1823),  gives  the  same  definitions,  both  in  the 
English  and  in  the  German. 

From  this  it  is  manifest,  that  \vhatever  might-  have 
been  the  etymology  of  the  words  Taufen  and  Taufer^ 
they  do  not  in  German  mean  immerse  or  immcrser.  To 
gve  a  German  an  idea  of  immersion  you  must  use  other 
words,  different  both  in  their  origin,  their  meaning,  and 
their  forna. 

The  world  will  doubtless  concur  with  Mr.  Woolsey  in 
his  encomium  upon  Luther  as  "  this  bold  defender  of  the 
inalienable  right  of  every  man,"  to  have  the  Bible  "  faith- 
ully  translated  into  his  vernacular  tongue."  Doubtless 
Luther  meant  to  give  "  the  Bible  translated  to  the  Ger- 
mans, that  they  might  read  in  their  own  language  the 
wonderful  works  of  God."  But  the  reader  may  judge 
whether  Mr.  Woolsey  would  not  have  spared  his  enco- 


128  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

mium  upon  Luther,  had  he  not,  in  talking  about  Luther's 
translation,  undertaken  to  talk  about  a  matter  concerning 
which  he  was  not  well  informed.  Because  our  English 
translators  render  the  word  baptize  by  the  word  wash  in 
Mark  vii.  4,  and  Luke  xi.  38,  Mr.  Woolsey  declares 
that  they  have  been  guilty  of  a  "  glaring  perversion  of 
this  Scripture,  by  suppressing  the  word  baptize^  and  sub- 
stituting the  word  wash,^^  p.  152.  He  contends,  p.  153, 
that  "  the  translators  of  our  English  Bible, /or  the  sake  of 
suppressing  the  true  import  of  the  words  baptize  and  bap- 
tism," "  have  not  only  concealed"  the  "  instructions  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,"  but  "  represented  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
using  the  most  stupid  tautology."  But  how  does  that 
''  great  reformer,"  and  ''  bold  defender,"  translate  these 
passages  %  Mr.  Woolsey  declares  that  he  has  given  to 
the  Germans  a  Bible  iranslated.  How  does  Luther  trans- 
late these  passages'?  He  translates  them  by  the  word 
*'  WASH,"  the  pure  old  Saxon  word,  the  identical  mother 
of  our  good  old  English  word  "  ivashy  ''  Und  icenn  sie 
vom  Wlarkte  kommc7i,  essen  sie  nicht^  sie  v/aschen  sich 
denn ;" — they  wash  themselves.  So  in  Luke  xi.  38. 
"  Da  das  der  Pharisaer  sah  verwunderte  er  sich,  dass  er 
sich  nicht  vor  den  essen  gewaschen  hatte," — that  he 
had  not  washed  himself.'''' 

THE  PESHITO-SYRIAC    VERSION. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  claim  this  version  as  evidence  in 
favor  of  immersion.  Thus,  Mr.  Woolsey  affirms,  p.  71, 
that  "  the  venerable  Peshito-Syriac  version,"  which  he 
thinks  was  "  evidently  executed  by  the  last  of  the  first 
century,"  has  baptize  translated  by  immerse. 

If  this  were  so,  1  think  we  have  shown  from  higher 
authority,  even  from  the  Scriptures  themselves,  that  such 


SYRIAC    VERSION.  129 

a  translation  is  wrong.  The  testimony  of  Evangelists 
and  Apostles  is  as  good  against  the  mere  opinion  of  all 
translators,  as  it  is  against  testimony  adduced  from  the 
heathen  Greeks. 

But  will  Mr.  Woolsey  admit  this  translation  to  be  good 
authority  on  the  subject  of  baptism  1  Will  Mr.  Woolsey 
after  affirming,  p.  252,  that "  not  a  word  is  said  about 
Infant  Baptism"  ''  till  the  third  century  ;"  will  he,  after 
all  that  he  has  said  about  "  Mistress  Lydia,"  p.  305,  and 
its  being  "  quite  certain  that  she  was  a  maiden  lady,"  p. 
306  ;  will  Mr.  Woolsey,  after  this,  admit  the  "  venera- 
ble Peshito-Syriac  version,"  this  "  Protoplastic  version," 
"  the  very  best  that  has  ever  been  ?nade,^^  as  good  authority 
on  the  subject  of  baptism  ?  This  Syriac  version  reads, 
that  "  when  she  (Lydia)  was  baptised  with  her  chil- 
dren."* Will  Mr.  Woolsey,  after  affirming  that  this 
version  was  made  by  the  last  of  the  first  century,  and 
maintaining  that  it  ^'  cannot  be  determined"  whether  it 
"  be  the  work  of  an  inspired  apostle  or  not,"  will  he  now 
admit  that  he  is  wrong  in  declaring  so  positively  that  there 
is  nowhere  any  mention  of  Infant  Baptism  till  the  third 
century  ?  Will  he  admit,  that  he  and  all  the  Baptists 
are  wrong  in  denying  that  Infant  Baptism  existed  before 
the  close  of  the  second  century,  and  acknowledge  that 
the  practice  can  be  traced  clearly  and  indubitably  to  the 
apostles :  or  will  he  for  ever  after  be  silent  about  the 
*'  immersion"  of  the  venerable  "  Peshito-Syriac  version  .^" 

But  it  is  not  admitted  that  the  Syriac  version  renders 
the  word  baptize  by  a  word  signifying  immerse.  The 
best  scholars  deny  it.  Professor  Stuart  show^s  that  while 
the  Syriac  has  a  word,  which  means  to  plunge,  dip,  or 

*  Kurtz,  p.  99.     The  Coptic  version  gives  the  same  reading. 
6* 


130  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

immerse,  the  Syriac  version  does  not  employ  that  word, 
but  another  which  signifies  "  to  confirm — to  establish^''''  so 
that  "Baptism,  then,  in  the  language  of  the  Peshito,  is 
the  rite  of  confirmation  simply,  while  the  manner  of  this 
is  apparently  left  without  being  at  all  expressed."*  An 
English  Baptist,  w^ho  is,  as  says  a  competent  judge, 
"  evidently  a  master  in  Israel,"  has  recently  WTitten 
against  the  "  Baptist  Translation  Society.  This  writer 
accords  with  Professor  Stuart  with  regard  to  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Syriac  word  by  which  baptize  is  translated  in 
the  version  in  question."  "  I  confess,"  says  he,  "  I  can 
derive  no  countenance  to  my  practice  as  a  Baptist  from 
this  version."  Concerning  the  Ethiopic  and  Coptic  ver- 
sions, he  admits  that  "they  must  be  set  aside,  if  they  are 
not  used  against  us  ('  the  Baptists')  in  the  baptismal  con- 
troversy."! 

The  ancient  Syriac  version  is  the  present  Bible  of  the 
Nestorian  Christians.  Their  modern  word  for  baptize 
is  radically  the  word  employed  in  the  ancient  version, 
and  like  the  German  taufen,  and  the  English  baptize,  it 
is  exclusively  appropriated  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 
They  baptize  eith^  by  immersion  or  affusion,  and  make 
no  objection  when  they  see  our  missionaries  baptize  b^ 
sprinkling,  but  consider  it  as  good  and  valid  baptism. 
Mr.  Woolsey  is,  therefore,  as  much  mistaken  here,  as 
he  is  in  the  case  of  Martin  Luther's  version. 

DUTCH,  DANISH  AND    SWEDISH  VERSIONS. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  affirm,  that  the  "  Dutch,  Danish 

*  From  Judd's  Reply  to  Professor  Stuart,  p.  164. 
t  See  New  York  Evangelist,  Jan.  23,  1841. 


DUTCH,  DANISH  AND  SWEDISH  VERSIONS.       131 

and  Swedish  versions  have  the  words  in  dispute  translat- 
ed by  words  signifying  immersion."* 

On  this  subject  I  will  simply  quote  the  words  of  Dr. 
Henderson,  who  has  studied  the  languages  of  Northern 
Europe  on  the  ground,  and  is  familiar  with  their  idioms. 
Dr.  Henderson  is  authority  upon  this  subject,  which  will 
not  probably  be  questioned. 

Says  Dr.  Henderson,  "  As  it  respects  the  Gothic  dia- 
lects, which  have  been  repeatedly  appealed  to  with  great 
confidence,  it  is  a  settled  point  with  all  who  are  acquaint- 
ed with  them,  that  the  reference  is  totally  irrelevant. 
That  the  Maeso-Gothic  daupian^  the  Anglo-Saxon  dyp- 
pauj  the  Dutch  doopen^  the  Swedish  dopa^  the  Danish 
c?o6e,  and  the  German  taufen,  all  correspond  in  sound 
to  our  English  word  dip,  does  not  admit  of  any  dispute, 
any  more  than  the  fact  that  dab,  daub,  and  dub,  have  the 
same  correspondence  ;  but  nothing  w^ould  be  more  erro- 
neous than  to  conclude,  with  the  exception  of  the  Anglo- 
Saxon,  that  they  must  have  the  same  signification.  No 
Dutchman,  Dane,  Swede,  or  German,  would  for  a  mo- 
ment imagine  that  the  words  belonging  to  their  respective 
languages  meant  anything  else  than  baptism,  by  the 
application  of  water  to  the  body  baptized.  The  words 
are  never  used  in  those  languages  in  another  sense,  or 
in  application  to  any  other  subject.  Where  the  Germans 
would  express  dip  or  immerse  they  employ  iauchen  and 
not  taufen,  which  is  the  word  by  which  baptize  is  trans- 
lated. The  Danes,  in  like  manner,  use  dyppe  and  ned- 
dijppe,  for  dip,  and  not  dobe.  And  that  neither  Luther, 
nor  the  authors  of  the  Dutch,  Danish,  and  Swedish  ver- 

Report  of  the  American  Foreign  Bible  Society,  1840,  p.  38. 
Woolsey,  p.  138. 


132  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

sions,  had  any  intention  of  conveying  the  idea  of  immer- 
sion as  impUed  in  baptize,  is  obvious  from  the  preposition 
vi^hich  they  have  used  with  the  verb.  Thus  we  read  in 
German,  mil  wasser  taufen  ;  in  Danish,  dobe  met  vand  ; 
in  Swedish,  dopa  med  vatn  ;  in  Dutch,  doopen  met  wasser ; 
i.  e.  with  water,  and  not  in  wasser — in  water,  i  vand,  i 
vatn  ;  which  phraseology  is  as  foreign  to  these  languages 
as  the  practice  which  it  would  sanction  is  unknown  to 
the  inhabitants  of  the  countries  in  which  they  are  spoken. 
Even  the  Mennonites  in  Holland,  and  other  parts, 
though  they  reject  Infant  Baptism,  administer  the  ordi- 
nance by  pouring  J  and  not  by  immersion." 

THE     VULGATE. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  are  equally  hostile  to  the  Vul- 
gate as  to  the  English  Version  for  having  transferred  the 
word  Baptize.  Thus,  Mr.  Woolsey  says,  p.  S2,  that 
"  The  Roman  Catholic  Bible,  i.  e.  the  Latin  Vulgate, 
was  the  first  to  transfer  baptize  and  other  words,  rather 
than  translate  them."  Again,  p.  S3,  he  calls  the  Vul- 
gate the  "  authorized  Roman  Bible^  On  p.  89,  he 
classes  our  English  Bible  and  the  Vulgate  together  as 
"  UNWORTHY  models.'^'' 

Now  it  is  true  that  the  Vulgate  is  the  "  authorized 
Bible"  in  the  Roman  Catholic  church.  But  it  is  also 
true  that  the  Vulgate  was  made  before  the  Papal  church 
had  an  existence.  The  Vulgate  w^as  declared  the  stand- 
ard version  of  the  Roman  church  by  the  Council  of  Trent, 
in  1545  :  but  it  ouo;ht  not  to  be  forgotten  that  it  w^as  to 
an  old  copy  of  the  Vulgate,  which  providentially  fell  into 
the  hands  of  Martin  Luther,  long  before  the  Council  of 
Trent,  that  we  owe   the   Reformation.     The   Bible  on 


THE    VULGATE.  133 

which  the  Reformation  was  built,  and  which  was  in  use 
by  all  the  ancient  Western  churches,  before  the  Papal 
church  was  born,  ought  not,  surely,  thus  to  be  thrown  by 
with  a  sarcasm,  as  ''  The  Roman  Catholic  Bible."  In 
the  time  of  Jerome,  who  was  born  about  A.  D.  380,  there 
were  several  Latin  versions  of  the  Bible  and  of  parts  of 
the  Bible.  One  of  them,  adopted  by  ecclesiastical  au- 
thority, had  long  been  called  the  Vulgate,  or  common 
version.  In  the  process  of  transcribing  many  times, 
many  mistakes  had  crept  into  the  common  copies.  In 
A.  D.  383,  Jerome  began  a  revision  of  this  ancient  Vul- 
gcdci^  or  Itala  version — having  before  him  the  original 
Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  original  Greek  of  the 
New,  together  with  the  Hexapla  of  Origen.  With  these, 
and  with  all  other  aids  before  him  which  the  age  afforded, 
Jerome  sat  down  to  the  revision  of  the  old  Itala  or  Vul- 
gata  :  a  part  of  which  revision  is  still  extant  (the  book 
of  Job,  and  the  book  of  Psalms),  the  remainder  is  lost. 
But  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  a  new  version,  and 
counselled  by  friends,  he  began  at  the  same  time  a  new 
version,  which  he  completed  A.  D.  405,  and  which  is 
now  the  well  known  Vulgate.  This  gradually  prevailed, 
and  in  time  entirely  supplanted  the  old  Itala. 

In  this  version  the  Greek,  baptize.,  is  adopted  into  the 
Latin  as  a  Latin  word.  It  was  probably  so  in  the  old 
Itala.  Jerome  could  not  have  changed  the  practice  of 
the  whole  Latin  church  in  administering  the  ordinance  of 
baptism,  and  taught  them  to  say  "  haptizo  te,"  instead  of 
"57f6??zerr7o  te,"  had  the  latter  or  any  such  word  been  in 
common  use.  I  see  no  reason  to  doubt  that,  from  the 
very  day  that  baptism  was  first  administered  at  Rome,  or 
in  the  Latin  tongue,  the  word  baptize  was  at  once  adopt- 


184  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

ed  into  the  Latin  tongue  by  a  transfer  from  the  Greek ; 
and  if  so,  it  was  done  either  by,  or  with  the  sanction  of 
the  Apostles  themselves.  At  all  events,  while  there  was 
a  common  Latin  word  for  immerse  and  for  submerge 
(these  two  English  words  are  taken  from  the  Latin) — 
Jerome,  and  the  Christian  world  with  him,  did  not  em- 
ploy either  submergo  or  immergo,  but  baptizo.  Now  the 
Baptists  affirm  that  the  whole  Christian  world  were  Bap- 
tists at  that  time  ;  i.  e.,  that  they  considered  baptism  to 
be  synonymous  with  immersion^  and  practised  according- 
ly. If  this  were  so,  then  the  Vulgate  is  rather  a  Baptist 
Bible  than  a  Roman  Catholic  Bible  :  and  immersers  first 
led  the  way  in  transferring  the  word  Daptize,  instead  of 
translating  it  by  a  word  in  common  use.  This  outcry 
about  "  transferring^'''^  and  "  concealing,'*  comes  to  this 
at  last. 

But  an  argument  may  be  built  upon  these  facts.  The 
ancient  Western  church,  whose  common  language  was 
Latin,  had  an  abundant  supply  of  words  to  express  im- 
mersion and  submersion^  if  they  had  thought  immersion 
the  only  baptism,  or  essential  to  it.  But  so  far  from  em- 
ploying one  of  their  common  words,  they  transferred  the 
original  Greek  word  baptize^  adopted  it  into  their  lan- 
guage, and  g^ve  it  a  complete  naturalization.  When 
they  spoke  of  baptism,  they  called  it  an  ablution,  a 
washing,  a  distilling  of  the  purifying  dew  ;  they  spoke  of 
it  not  as  an  immersion.  As  to  the  manner  of  performing 
baptism,  even  when  they  generally  practised  immersion, 
they  did  not  always  do  so,  and  of  course  never  deemed  it 
essential.  What  is  the  inevitable  conclusion  from  these 
facts  1  That  they  did  not  consider  the  word  immerse,  or 
the  word  submerge,  as  equivalent  to  the  word  baptize : 


THE    VULGATE.  135 

and  that  a  substitution  of  these  words  for  that  would  not 
be  an  adequate  faithful  translation. 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  judgment  of  the  ancient 
church  with  regard  to  the  propriety  of  transferring  the 
word  in  question  :  and  that  judgment  founded  upon  the 
conviction  that  neither  of  their  existing  words  would 
truly  and  adequately  express  the  true  idea  of  Christian 
baptism. 

This  was  the  judgment  of  the  Christian  church  in  the 
time  of  Jerome  :  and  in  his  days  the  use  of  baptizo,  as  a 
common  Latin  word,  was  a  custom,  whereof  the  memory 
of  man  ran  not  to  the  contrary — as  a  practice  in  which  all 
Christians  who  spake  the  Latin  language  acquiesced  and 
undoubtingly  agreed.  The  transfer  was,  without  any 
ground  for  doubt  of  which  I  am  informed,  made  in  the 

DAYS    OF    THE  ApOSTLES    THEMSELVES.       It  is    not,  aS  Mr. 

Woolsey's  book  and  the  Report  of  the  Baptist  Bible  So- 
ciety would  lead  those  to  suppose  who  are  not  otherwise 
informed,  a  recent  invention^  to  oppose  the  Baptists,  and 
"  to  conceal  a  part  of  God's  revealed  will  from  the  na- 
tions of  the  earth,  in  a  dead  language^  with  a  view  of 
promoting  party  designs,  and  of  preventing  men  from 
knowing  his  will,  and  their  duty  and  obligation  to  obey 
him." 


IV. 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 

SCRIPTURAL    AUTHORITY. 


MATTHEW    XXVIII.    19. 

Go  ye  therefore  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


There  are  two  questions  with  regard  to  Baptism,  on 
which  evangelical  Christians  are  divided  ;  one  respecting 
the  mode^  and  the  other  respecting  the  subjects.  These 
two  questions  are  entirely  distinct,  and  there  is  no  reason 
why  those  who  differ  concerning  one  might  not  agree 
concerning  the  other. 

Between  us  and  our  Baptist  brethren  there  is  no  dif- 
ference of  opinion  concerning  the  subjects  of  baptism,  ex- 
cept concerning  Infants.  We  agree  that  aduUs  are  not 
to  be  baptized,  save  on  a  credible  profession  of  evangeli- 
cal faith  and  repentance.  The  questions  concerning  the 
subjects  are  therefore  limited  to  this  single  inquiry : 
Are  the  infant  children  of  believing  parents  to  be  baptized  ? 

The  law  of  the  institution  makes  no  express  mention 
of  infants.  It  is  therefore  contended  that  this  is  conclu- 
sive against  Infant  Baptism ;  as  in  a  positive  institution 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  137 

we  are  to  go  by  the  letter  of  the  law  ;  and  all  beyond 
thisj  as  well  as  everything  short  of  this,  is  wrong. 

I  humbly  conceive,  however,  that  Christ  has  a  right 
to  naake  known  his  will,  in  this  or  in  any  other  matter, 
in  just  such  a  way  as  he  pleases  ; — that  the  incidental  re- 
cogmtion^hy  the  apostles,  of  infants  as  properly  embraced 
in  the  intent  of  that  law,  or  their  actual  practice  of  bap- 
tizing infants,  would  be  an  authoritative  interpretation  of 
the  law,  as  extending  its  provisions  to  infants.  And  we 
deceive  ourselves ;  we  undertake  to  correct  the  wisdom 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  we  are  guilty  of  disobedience 
to  his  authority ;  if,  in  such  a  case,  we  allow  any  notions 
or  arguments  about  a  "  positive  institution"  to  lead  us  to 
act  in  opposition  to  the  will  of  Christ,  no  less  truly 
made  known  than  if  the  warrant  had  expressed  infants 
by  name.  The  question  is  not.  Are  infants  expressly 
named  ?  but,  Has  Christ  anywhere^  and  in  any  way^  in- 
structed us  ivhether  they  are  to  he  embraced  or  excluded  ? 

On  this  principle  our  Baptist  brethren  themselves  argue 
and  practise  in  other  matters  ;  and  that,  too,  in  matters 
pertaining  to  '■'•positive  institutions.''''  Indeed,  any  other 
principle  than  this  would  shut  out  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ 
from  being  master  and  lawgiver  over  his  own  house. 
Who  are  we,  to  prescribe  to  him  how  he  is  to  make 
known  his  will  ;  and  that  under  penalty  of  having  his 
will  rejected,  if  he  does  not  make  it  known  in  just  the 
manner  that  we  think  he  ought  to  employ  ? 

The  Sabbath  is  a  positive  institution  ;  and  God  has 
expressly  designated  the  seventh  day  ;  yet  all  Christians 
in  the  world,  who  keep  a  Sabbath,  save  a  very  diminutive 
fraction  of  one  sect,  keep  the  first  day.  Where  is  the 
express  warrant  for  this  change  1     There  is  none.     Our 


138  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Baptist  brethren,  like  ourselves,  make  out  a  warrant  by 
inference.  We  find  the  will  of  Christ  made  known  in 
the  Scriptures, — not  expressly^  but  circumstantially.  The 
practice  of  the  Apostles  teaches  the  will  of  Christ,  even 
though  it  be  but  incidentally  mentioned.  We  admit  the 
validity  of  this  warrant  by  inference.  If  truly  made 
out,  it  is  as  clearly  the  will  of  Christ  as  though  we  had 
found  an  express  warrant  in  so  many  words,  "  Let  the 
Sabbath  be  changed  from  the  seventh  day  to  the  first." 

The  "  Seventh  Day  Baptists'*^  are  the  only  consistent 
ones  here.  They  do  with  the  Sabbath  as  they  do  by 
Infant  Baptism  ;  they  admit  nothing  but  an  express  war- 
rant, in  so  many  words,  to  bear  upon  either  question ; 
"  and,"  said  one  of  their  ministers  to  me,  "  we  feel  that 
with  our  Baptist  brethren  our  arguments  are  unanswer- 
able. 7'hey  must  either  keep  the  seventh  day  as  the  Sab- 
hath,  or  else  reject  the  very  principles  on  which  they  reject 
Infant  Baptism  ;  they  must  give  up  their  argument.,  or  keep 
the  seventh  day,  or  else  determine  to  act  inconsistently  and 
absurdly.^'' 

His  conclusion  was  manifestly  sound.  And  I  could 
not  help  adding,  both  they  and  you  must  give  up  female 
communion  too  :  for  when  Christ  instituted  his  Supper 
there  were  no  female  disciples  present,  though  he  had 
such  at  the  time,  and  he  said  not  one  word  about  them 
in  the  law  of  the  ordinance  ;  nor  are  they  anywhere  ex- 
pressly mentioned  as  partaking  in  the  celebration  of  the 
ordinance  :  and  yet  the  Lord's  Supper  is  purely  a  "joosi- 
tive  institution.,'^''  and,  say  our  brethren,  you  must  go  by 
the  letter  ;  you  must  not  go  beyond  ;  you  must  not  make 
out  a  warrant  by  inference  ;  you  must  have  it  express. 

I  know  they  prove  the  propriety  of  female  comma- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  139 

nion  ;  but  they  prove  it  by  inference,  and  not  by  any 
EXPRESS  command  or  precept.  I  admit  the  proof  to  be 
valid  :  but  neither  our  Baptist  brethren  nor  anybody  else 
can  make  it  out,  without  at  the  same  time  sweeping 
away  the  very  foundation  of  their  argument  against  In- 
fant Baptism. 

I  only  insist  that  the  same  sort  of  proof  be  considered 
equally  valid  to  prove  the  authority  for  Infant  Baptism. 
I  am  willing  to  have  it  required  that  that  proof  be  ample. 
I  have  no  fear  for  the  issue,  if  the  condition  of  receiving 
Infant  Baptism  be  ten  times  the  amount  of  proof  required 
to  substantiate  the  change  of  the  Sabbath,  or  to  make 
out  the  Scriptural  warrant  for  female  communion. 

You  perceive  that  I  have  here  made  a  "  concession  ;" 
if  it  be  proper  to  call  that  a  concession,  which  concerns 
a  thing  that  we  never  attempted  to  hold  ;  and  which  is 
a  simple  statement  of  a  truth  that  every  Psedo-baptist  in 
the  world  was  always  free  to  acknowledge.  The  "  con- 
cession" is,  that  the  law  of  baptism  makes  no  express 
mention  of  infants. 

But  having  made  this  concession,  I  must  be  allowed 
to  enter  my  protest  against  being  understood  or  reported 
to  have  conceded  that  the  Scriptures  furnish  no  warrant 
for  Infant  Baptism.  I  concede  no  such  thing.  I  maintain 
the  contrary.  Nor  will  it  be  deemed  a  matter  of  wonder 
to  those  who  know  what  use  is  sometimes  made  of  con- 
cessions, that  I  should  deem  it  necessary  to  enter  this 
protest. 

Thus,  a  concession  of  Dr.  Woods  is  sometimes  quoted 
in  such  a  way  as  to  leave  those  who  hear  it,  under  the 
impression,  that  Dr.  Woods  admits  that  the  Scriptures 


140  LAW   OF    BAPTISM. 

furnish  no  warrant  for  Infant  Baptism.*  So  far  as  his 
words  are  quoted,  they  are  quoted  correctly  from  p.  11 
of  his  work  on  Infant  Baptism  :  '■'■  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  precepts  of  Christ  or  his  apostles  to  those  who 
enjoyed  their  personal  instructions,  it  is. a  plain  case 
that  there  is  no  express  precept  respecting  Infant  Baptism 
in  our  sacred  writings." 

Here  the  matter  is  left.  The  quotation  is  truth  as  far 
as  it  goes  :  but  what  is  essential  to  the  truth  is  omitted ; 
and  the  omission  causes  Dr.  Woods  to  be  understood  as 
giving  up  all  claim  of  a  <Scrip^wra/ warrant  for  Infant  Bap- 
tism ;  whereas,  in  truth.  Dr.  Woods  gives  his  testimony 
directly  to  the  contrary.  His  "  concession'^''  refers  only 
to  an  "  EXPRESS  precept."  His  work  was  written  for  the 
very  purpose  of  proving  the  Scriptural  warrant  for  In- 
fant Baptism.  He  is  very  explicit  (p.  42),  to  take  his 
position  in  the  most  formal  words  ;  and  he  prints  them 
in  italics  that  this  position  ma}--  be  well  noted  and  under- 
stood ;  and  these  are  his  words  : 

*'  But  I  shall  now  proceed  to  argue  the  point  from  the 
INSPIRED  RECORDS  just  as  they  are.  My  position  is,  that 
the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament^  understood  accord- 
ing to  the  just  rules   of  interpretation,  imply  that  the 

CHILDREN    OF    BELIEVERS    ARE    TO    BE    BAPTIZED." 

In  the  same  manner,  in  a  tract  published  by  the  "  Gene- 
ral Baptist  Tract  Society,''''  entitled  "  The  Scripture 
Guide  to  Baptism,  hy  Pengilly,^^  and  widely  circulated 
both  here  and  elsewhere,  Mr.  Baxter  is  introduced  as 
speaking  in  the  strongest  terms  against  Infant  Baptism. 
One  long  quotation  from  his  writings  introduced  for  this 

*  The  writer  has  himself  heard  Dr.  Woods  quoted  in  this 
manner  before  a  full  congregation. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  141 

purpose,  ends  with  these  words  :  "  I  profess  my  con- 
science is  fully  satisfied  from  this  text,  that  it  is  one  sort 
of  faith,  even  saving,  that  must  go  before  baptism." 
The  last  words  are  printed  in  capitals.  Jewett,  in  his 
work  on  Baptism,  has  introduced  the  same  quotation  for 
the  same  purpose ;  to  make  Richard  Baxter  bear  his 
witness  against  Infant  Baptism. 

And  again,  "  The  Scripture  Guide  to  Baptism.,  by  Pen- 
gillif^  (p.  44),  after  asserting  in^  italics,  ^'- that  we  have 
nowhere  found  a  single  place  or  passage  that  describes^  re- 
cords^ or  implies  the  baptism  of  any  infants  ;"  says,  "  the 
reader  will  not  suppose  this  a  hasty  conclusion  when  he 
hears  the  following  P^do-baptists."  Under  this,  he 
quotes  again  Mr.  Baxter,  thus :  "  I  conclude  that  all 
examples  of  baptism  in  Scripture  do  mention  only  the 
administration  of  it  to  the  professors  of  saving  faith  :  and 
the  precepts  give  us  no  other  direction.  And  I  provoke 
Mr.  Blake,  as  far  as  is  seemly  for  me  to  do,  to  name  one 
precept  or  example  for  any  other,  and  make  it  good  if  he 
can." 

Here  is  a  point  in  question,  and  witnesses  are  called. 
Richard  Baxter  is  brought  upon  the  stand.  Mr.  Baxter^ 
Is  Infant  Baptism  right  according  to  the  word  of  Godl 
An  answer  is  put  into  his  mouth,  taken  from  his  works, 
in  which  he  is  reasoning, — not  concerning  infants, — but 
concerning  adults  ;  and  showing  that  ^'  it  is  one  sort  of 
faith,  even  saving''''  (and  not  simply  the  intellectual  be- 
lief of  an  unconverted  man),  "  that  must  go  before  bap- 
tism." And  so,  Richard  Baxter  is  by  this  process  made 
to  bear  witness  against  Infant  Baptism  ! 

But,  Mr.  Baxter,  you  were  a  Psedo-baptist ;  did  you 
not  baptize  children,  and  so  teach  and  exhort  in  the  house 


142  LAW     OF    BAPTISM. 

of  God  ?  0  yes  :  and  dearly  prized  the  ordinance,  and 
would  not  have  given  it  up  sooner  than  I  would  have 
given  up  my  life.  But,  Mr.  Baxter,  what  is  this  then 
that  they  say  of  you  1  Your  name  is  spread  abroad  in 
tracts  upon  tracts,  and  in  books  upon  books,  and  goes 
out  to  the  four  winds  of  heaven ;  and  your  own  strong 
language  is  printed  in  the  boldest  relief,  as  though  the 
author  of  the  "  Saint's  Rest,"  and  of  the  "  Call  to  the 
Unconverted,"  had  borne  his  testimony  most  decidedly 
against  Infant  Baptism  !  Are  you  so  opposed,  Mr.  Bax- 
ter 1  Is  this  witness  true  of  you  ?  What  say  you  of 
Infants  J  Mr.  Baxter  1  Do  you  cut  these  off  from  the 
Church  of  God  ? 

To  be  so  quoted  is  well  nigh  enough  to  call  the  dead 
^'  Saint"  from  his  '*  Rest."  He  answers  on  this  point : 
and  it  is  Baxter's  own  strong  emotion  and  burning  words 
that  speak  :  ^'  God,"  says  Mr.  Baxter,  "God  had  never 

A  CHURCH  ON  EARTH,  OF  WHICH  INFANTS  WERE  NOT 
INFANT     MEMBERS,     SINCE    THERE    WERE    INFANTS    IN     THE 


*  Baxter's  Comment,  on  Matt,  xxviii.  19  (in  Gray  on  the 
Authority  for  Infant  Baptism,  Halifax,  1837,  p.  200). 

The  hottest  controversy  which  Mr.  Baxter  ?ver  had  was  with 
the  Baptists.  A  Mr.  Tombes  had  written  a  book  against  Infant 
Baptism,  and  thought  that  Baxter  was  "  the  chief  hinderer"  of  its 
success :  "  Though,"  says  Mr.  Baxter,  "  I  never  meddled  with 
that  point."  "  He  had,"  says  Baxter,  "  so  high  a  conceit  of  his 
writings  that  he  thought  them  unanswerable,  and  that  none  could 
deal  with  them  in  that  way."  "  At  last,  somehow,  he  urged  me 
to  give  my  judgment  of  them  ;  when  I  let  him  know  they  did  not 
satisfy  me  to  be  of  his  mind,  but  went  no  further  with  him." 
"But  he  unavoidably  contrived  to  bring  me  into  the  controversy 
which  I  shunned."  In  the  end  Baxter  agreed  to  hold  a  public  dis- 
cussion in  Mr.  Tombes'  church,  Jan.  1,  1649.    "  This  dispute," 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  143 

But  enough  of  these  "  concessions."  Enough  of  these 
clouds  of  quotations  from  Ptedo-baptist  writers  to  make 
them  say  what,  quoted  in  such  connections  and  for  such 
purposes,  is  heaven-wide  from  the  faith  in  which  they 
lived  and  in  which  they  died.  What  is  done  to  the  living 
Woods  and  to  the  dead  Baxter ,  is  done  to  Calvin j  and 
to  a  host  of  others.  These  men  went  to  the  word  of 
God  for  their  doctrine.  Whatever  would  not  stand  by 
that  rule  they  scrupulously  rejected,  with  loathing  and 
abhorrence, — "  hating  even  the  garment  spotted  by  the 
flesh."  They  taught  and  practised  sprinkling  and  pouring 
for  baptism  :  they  taught  and  practised  the  baptism  of 
infants  : — for  the  warrant  of  both  they  went  to  the  word 
of  God.  And  now,  the  influence  of  their  names  and  the 
weight  of  their  piety  is  attempted  to  be  laid  into  the  scale 
against  the  doctrines  which  they  practised  and  taught, 

says  Baxter,  "  satisfied  all  my  own  people,  and  the  country  that 
came  in,  and  Mr.  Tombes'  own  townsmen,  except  about  twenty 
whom  he  had  perverted,  who  gathered  into  his  church  ;  which 
never  increased  to  above  twenty-two,  that  I  could  learn." 

Not  long  after,  Baxter  published  his  work,  entitled,  "Plain 
Scripture  Proof  of  Infants'  Church  Membership  and 
Baptism."  This  work  passed  through  several  editions.  "  The 
book,"  says  Baxter,  "  God  blessed  with  unexpected  success  to  stop 
abundance  from  turning  Anabaptists,  and  reclaiming  many." 

Nineteen  years  after,  Baxter  published  another  work,  entitled 
More  Proofs  of  Infant  Church  Membership,  and  conse 
QUENTLY  THEIR  RiGHTS  TO  Baptism.  This  book  is  divided 
into  three  parts,  which  contain,  he  tells  us,  "  The  plain  proof  ot 
God's  statute  or  covenant  for  Infants'  church  membership  from 
the  creation,  and  the  continuance  of  it  till  the  institution  of  Bap- 
tism ;  with  the  defence  of  that  proof  against  the  frivolous  excep- 
tions of  Mr.  Tombes." — (  Ormes'  Life  and  Times  of  Baxter^  Vol,  ii., 
p.  252.) 


144  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

as  the  truth  and  the  ordinances  of  God.  Is  this  deahng 
kindly  and  truly  with  the  dead  %  Is  this  dealing  kindly 
and  righteously  with  the  truth  1 

In  the  same  manner,  in  this  work  by  "  Pengilly," 
published  by  the  Baptist  General  Tract  Society  as  the 
"  Scripture  Guide  to  Baptism,"  the  names  of  such  men 
as  Doddridge^  Baxter^  Erskine,  Matthew  Henry,  Calvin, 
Saumij  Guyse,  Charnock,  are  arrayed  as  if  against  us  in 
the  particulars  in  which  we  differ  from  our  Baptist 
brethren.  Take  the  names  from  the  book  and  the  quo- 
tations annexed  to  them,  and  the  book  is  left  a  mere 
lifeless  carcase.  But  hear  them  fully  :  hear  them  truly  : 
and  do  they  stand  against  us  ?  Could  they  come  up 
from  the  dead  into  the  midst  of  this  community,  to  a 
man  they  would  wend  their  way  to  these  walls  for  the 
truth  and  order  which  they  held  as  established  by  the 
word  of  God.  To  a'inan  they  would  lift  up  their  voices 
for  the  ordinances  which  now  their  names  are  made  to 
impugn.  They  w^ould  cry  out  upon  the  injustice  done 
to  their  memories  and  to  the  truth,  by  these  attempts  to 
cast  the  weight  of  their  names  against  what  they  taught 
and  practised,  as  the  truth  and  the  ordinances  of  God. 
And  other Sy  whose  names  are  quoted  in  this  tract  by 
PengilJy,  though  they  might  not  in  all  respects  agree 
with  Its,  would  nevertheless  give  us  their  united  voice 
on  the  matter  now  in  question.  The  Methodists,  White- 
field  and  Wesley  ;  the  Episcopal  Scott  ;  the  Bishops  of 
the  Church  of  England,  Tillotson,  Burnet,  and  Taylor, 
and  Archbishop  Seeker,  would  cry  out  upon  the  injustice 
done  io  their  names  in  arraying  them,  as  if  witnesses, 
against  the  truth  and  the  ordinances  which  they  held  as 
most  assuredly  the  truth  and  the  ordinances  of  God. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  145 

But  turn  from  the  authority  of  names,  to  the  foundations 
on  which  these  men  rested  their  faith.  ''  To  the  law, 
and  to  the  testimony." 

In  our  examination  of  the  circumstances  which  bear 
upon  the  interpretation  of  the  Law  of  Baptism,  it  will 
appear, 

I.  That  the  Abrahamic  and  the  Christian  Church  are 
one.  and  the  same  ;  built  on  the  same  covenant  ;  saved  with 
the  same  faith  ;  and  considered  in  the  word  of  God  as  one 
and  the  same  Church. 

II.  That  circumcision  and  baptism  are  alike  seals  of 
the  same  covenant ,  and  signs  of  the  same  thing. 

III.  That  the  children  of  believers,  as  they  were  con- 
nected with  the  Abrahamic  Church,  are  recognized  in  the 
New  Testament  as  sustaining  the  same  relation  to  the 
Christian  Church. 

If  these  things  can  be  proved  by  the  certain  warrant  of 
the  word  of  God,  it  v/ill  follow  that  the  Law  of  Baptism 
in  the  Christian  Church  is  to  be  interpreted  as  extending 
to  the  children  of  believing  parents.  It  would  seem  use- 
less to  deny  the  sign  to  them  who  have  the  thing  ;  and 
as  the  seal  w^as  once  expressly  extended  to  children,  if 
they  are  to  be  excepted  afterwards,  in  the  application  of 
another  sign,  of  the  same  meaning,  intent  and  use,  the 
exception  must  be  specified,  otherwise  the  sign  follows 
with  the  thing.  God  h^vmg  given  his  charter,  and  sealed 
it  to  a  specified  class  of  persons,  afterwards  while  he 
expressly  continues  the  charter  but  changes  the  form  of 
the  seal,  the  seal  in  that  changed  form  remains  of  course. 
Without  an  express  warrant  from  God,  man  may  not 
take  away  the  charter,  or  refuse  the  seal. 

If,  in  addition  to  this,  we  find, 


146  LAW  OP  BAPTISM. 

IV.  Grounds  for  concluding  that  apostles  applied 
THE  SIGN ;  and  certain  history  to  show  that  the  whole 
CHURCH  RECEIVED  THE  PRACTICE,  as  they  bcUeved,  fro?n  the 
apostles  ;  a7id  so  practised,  uniformly  all  over  the  worldy 
with  not  a  man  to  raise  his  voice  against  the  divine  authority 
of  the  practice  for  more  than  thirty  generations  after 
Christ  ;  I  think  we  may  rest  the  question  as  settled.  It 
is  not  only  lawful,  but  a  correct  and  authorized  interpre- 
tation of  the  law  of  the  institution  requires  believing  pa- 
rents to  cause  their  infant  children  to  be  baptized. 

This  is  the  outline  of  the  argument  which  I  shall  pursue. 
And  now  to  the  proof. 

I.  The  Abrahamic  and  the  Christian  Church  are  one 
and  the  same. 

The  Lord  appeared  to  Abraham  (Gen.  xii.  1 — 3),  and 
promised  that  in  him  should  "  All  the  families  of  the 
earth  he  blessed.''''  In  Gen.  xvii.  1 — 14,  God  again  pro- 
mised that  Abraham  should  be  "  the  father  of  many 
nations  :"  and  that  he  would  be  "  a  God  to  him  and  to  hu 
seed  after  him.''''  At  the  same  time  God  gave  him  the 
ordinance  of  circumcision  for  himself  and  for  his  seed. 

Here  was  the  commencement  of  the  polity  of  the  pe- 
culiar people  of  God  intended  by  the  term  Church;  and 
distinguished  (Rom.  iii.  2)  as  having  entrusted  to  them 
"  the  oracles  of  God  ;"  and  (Rom.  ix.  5)  as  those  to 
whom  "  pertain  the  adoption,  and  the  covenants,  and  the 
service  of  God,  and  the  promises  ;"  and  declared  (1  Tim 
iii.  15),  to  be  "  the  house  of  God  ;'*  "  the  church  of  the 
living  God  ;"  "  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth." 

On  account  of  this  covenant,  God  is  called  the  "  God 
of  Abraham,  and  of  Isaac,  and  of  Jacob  ;"  rather  than 
the  God  of  Enoch,  or  of  Noah,  or  of  Moses,  or  of  David. 


INFAI^JT    BAPTISM.  147 

He  is  called  their  God  in  relation  to  this  covenant ;  as 
in  numberless  instances,  so  particularly  in  2  Cor.  vi.  16, 
as  God  hath  said,  "  1  will  dwell  in  them  and  walk  in 
them;  and  I  will  be  their  God  and  the}^  shall  be  my  people;^'' 
i.  e.  their  God,  as  he  is  not  the  God  of  other  men  ;  and 
they  his  people,  as  other  men  are  not  his  people.  So  in 
Heb.  xi.  16,  "  Wherefore  God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  call- 
ed THEIR  God." 

This  people  of  God,  as  an  external  visible  polity,  is 
called  "  Israel"  or  the  '*  Church  :"  as  in  Acts  vii.  38, 
the  descendants  of  Jacob  are  called  "  the  Chufch  in  the 
"wilderness  ;"  just  as  the  vi.sible  polity  of  Christ's  people 
are  called  "  the  Church  ;"  as  in  1  Cor.  xii.  28,  "  And 
God  hath  set  some  in  the  Church  ;  first  apostles  ;  sec- 
ondarily prophets  ;  thirdly  teachers,"  &c.  Here  the 
word  Church  does  not  mean  simply  an  "  assembly  ;"  for 
it  is  no  particular  assembly  that  is  here  spoken  of,  but 
Christ's  visible  people  everywhere ;  his  Church  in  the 
widest  sense. 

But  the  visible  Church  is  never  made  up  exclusively 
of  those  who  shall  be  saved  :  and  so  the  terms  "  IsraeV 
and  "  Church"  are  used  ordinarily  to  designate  the  body 
of  those  who  are  apparently  his  ;  to  wit,  the  visible 
polity  made  up  of  good  and  bad.  Again,  they  are 
sometimes  used  to  denote  particularly  those  only  who 
shall  be  the  heirs  of  salvation.  Thus,  the  first  term  is 
used  in  both  senses  in  the  following  passage,  Rom.  ix.  6, 
"  For  they  are  not  all  Israel  which  are  of  Israel."  And 
the  "  kingdom  of  God"  (the  visible  Church)  is  represent- 
ed. Matt.  xiii.  47,  as  a  "  net  cast  into  the  sea,  which 
gathered  of  every  kind  ;  though  only  cast  for  the  proper 


148  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

kinds.  When  full  and  drawn  to  the  shore,  the  good  are 
gathered  in  vessels  ;  the  had  are  thrown  away. 

Now  the  covenant  on  which  the  Abrahamic  Church 
was  founded,  was  not  a  covenant  of  works,  but  of  grace  : 
and  its  promise  was  not  simply  of  the  land  of  Canaan, 
but  of  Heaven.  Thus,  Rom.  iv.  13,  "  For  the  promise 
that  he  should'be  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to  Abraham 
or  to  his  seed  through  the  law,  but  through  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith.''''  And  (ver.  12),  '*  He  received  the  sign  of 
circumcision,  a  seal  of /^e  righteousness  of  faith  which 
he  had,  being  yet  uncircumcised." 

It  has  been  strenuously  asserted  that  the  covenant 
v/as  one  of  temporal  promises  only,  and  circumcision 
given  as  a  mere  national  badge  (and  indeed  it  is 
necessary  for  those  who  reject  Infant  Baptism  to  say 
something  of  the  kind).  But  the  word  of  God  teaches 
us  otherwise.  "  Abraham  was  ;Ms^i^6;c?6y/t////A.-'  Rom. 
iv.  13,  "  The  po/«25e  was.. ..through  the  righteousness 
of  faith  ;''  and  circumcision  was  "a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith  ;"  to  wit,  of  the  "  faith  by  which  men  must  be 
justified.^''  So  we  are  taught  expressly  (Heb.  xi.)  that 
Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob,  and  Sara,  and  "  multi- 
tudes "  of  their  descendants,  as  the  sand  which  is  by 
the  sea  shore  innumerable,  '•'■died  in  the  faith  ;'''' — not 
simply  in  faith  of  the  promise  of  Canaan,  but  of  Heaven. 
Thus,  Heb.  xi.  13,  15,  "  And  confessed  that  they  were 
strangers  and  pilgrims  on  the  earth," — "but  now  they 
desire  a  better  country,  that  is  a  Heavenly  :"  where- 
fore God  is  not  ashamed  to  be  called  their  God  ;  '■'■forhe 
hath  prepared  for  them  a  city."  What  "city,"  but 
Heaven  ? 

x\nd  since  there  is  no  other  name  than  Christ  where- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  149 

by  man  must  be  saved,  Acts  iv.  12,  since  there  is  "  one 
God  and  one  mediator  between  God  and  man,"  1  Tim. 
ii.  5,  these  men  believed  on  Christ.  This  we  are  ex- 
pressly taught.  Thus,  ''  Abraham  rejoiced  tO'  see  my 
day,  and  he  saw  it,  and  was  glad."  So  of  all  the  ancient 
Israehtes  who  were  saved  it  is  expressly  said,  1  Cor.  x. 
2 — 4,  "  And  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses  in  the  cloud 
and  in  the  sea ;  and  did  all  eat  or  the  s^me  spiritual 
MEAT  :  and  did  alldiink  of  the  same  spiritual  drink  :  for 
they  drank  oiihzX  spiritual  xocki\\<ii  followed  them  ;  and 
that  rock  was  Christ." 

Here  pause  a  moment.  Was  not  that  the  true 
Church,  whose  true  members 

Believed  on  Christ ; 

Sought  a  Heavenly  country ; 

Were  justified  by  faith  ; 

Of  whom  theiuorld  was  not  worthy  ; 

For  whom  God  prepared  a  city  ; 

And  who  are  now  set  down  in  the  kingdom  of  God  ? 

In  what  respect  does  the  Church  of  Christ  differ  from 
this,  in  the  articles  which  may  well  be  judged  the  Articles 
of  the  true  Church  of  God  ? 

"  But  the  Jewish  polity  is  passed  away."  True. 
But  the  Abrahamic  Church  is  quite  a  different  thing  from 
the  Jewish  polity.  Thus,  Gal.  iii.  17,  "  And  this  I  say, 
that  the  covenant^  that  was  confirmed  before  of  God,  in 
Christ,  the  law^  which  was  four  hundred  and  thirt}'  years 
after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise 
of  none  effect."  And  if  the  giving  of  the  law  did  not 
annul  the  covenant,  certainly  the  covenant  is  not  annulled 
by  the  removing  of  the  ceremonial  law.  And  this  is  the 
very  thing  for  which  Paul  is  arguing :  and  which  the 


150  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Holy  Ghost,  who  inspired  him,  teaches  through  his  ar- 
guments : — that  the  covenant  and  its  blessings  remain, 
and  come  upon  the  Gentiles,  as  Paul  says  in  express 
words  (v.  11),  "  T'hat  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might 
COME  ON  THE  Gentiles  thvough  Jesus  Christ^^ 

Now  "  Circumcision  was  not  of  Moses  but  of  the 
fathers,"  John  vii.  22.  It  was  the  seal  of  a  covenant 
which  existed  before  the  law  ;  and  neither  the  giving  of 
the  law  nor  the  removal  of  it  affected  either  the  covenant 
or  the  seal.  The  covenant  remaining,  the  seal  remained, 
of  course,  unless  specially  abrogated.  Another  form  of 
the  seal  was  indeed  adopted  under  Christ,  as  another  day 
was  adopted  for  the  Sabbath,  instead  of  the  seventh. 

The  seal  being  changed,  circumcision  was  interdicted 
(Acts  XV.),  but  this  was  especially  on  the  ground  that 
those  who  enjoined  circumcision,  taught  that  it  was 
needful  to  circumcise  them  and  "  to  command  them  to  keep 
the  law  of  Moses ;''"'  and  to  circumcise  as  well  as  baptize. 
The  circumcision,  under  these  circumstances,  was  en- 
joined and  received  undzr  the  notion  of  being  justified  by 
the  law ;  and  became  in  its  practical  effect  a  sign  of 
justification  by  the  law.  Under  these  circumstances,  the 
apostles,  divinely  instructed,  did  with  circumcision  what 
Hezekiah  did  with  "  the  brazen  serpent  that  Moses  had 
made,"  2  Kino;s  xviii.  14.  It  must  no  lono-er  be  tole- 
rated  when  it  became  the  means  of  sin  and  ruin.  Paul 
also  (Gal.  v.)  spoke  against  circuuicision  on  the  ground 
that  they  who  practised  it,  did  it  under  the  notion  of 
attaining  justification  by  the  works  of  I  he  law.  To  keep 
the  seventh  day,  under  the  notion  of  being  justified  by 
the  law,  would  put  one  equally  off  from  the  ground  of 
grace.     He  would  be  ^'fallen  from  grace  ;"  and  "  Christ 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  151 

should  profit  hiin  nothing."  It  was  on  this  ground  that 
Paul  interdicted  circumcision,  and  on  this  only;  for 
Paul  himself  (Acts  xvi.  3),  when  he  would  have  Timo- 
thy  go  forth  with  him,  "  took  fain  and  circumcised  hiniy 
because  of  the  Jews  which  were  in  those  quarters." 

So  far,  then,  the  covenant  with  its  seal  remain  unim- 
paired by  the  giving  and  the  removing  of  the  law. 

"  Wherefore,  then,  serveth  the  law  l  It  was  added, 
because  of  transgressions,  till  the  seed  should  come,  to 
whom  the  promise  icasmade,^*  Gal.  iii.  19.  The  inference 
is  inevitable ;  the  law  passes  away  when  Christ  comes  ; 
since  it  was  only  added  to  continue  "  till "  that  time. 
The  promise  and  the  covenant  remain  to  be  fulfilled  :  to 
wit,  the  promise  referred  to  in  these  words,  Gal.  iii.  8, 
"  And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify 
the  heathen  through  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto 
Abraham,   saying.   In   thee  shall  all  the    families  of 

THE  EARTH  BE  BLESSED," 

If  now  ive  were  to  add  to  this,  "  So,  then,  modern 
believers  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,"  the  reasoning  might  be  questioned.  But  the 
w^ord  of  God  has  come  to  such  a  conclusion,  and  it  ought 
to  seem  to  be  no  longer  a  matter  to  be  questioned. 
"  Soj  then^^''  says  the  apostle,  "  they  which  be  of  faith, 
are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham. ''"'  '-'■Know  ye  not, 
that  they  which  are  of  faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of 
Abraham,''^  Gal.  iii.  7.  Why  are  they  not  called  the 
children  of  Enoch,  or  of  Noah,  or  of  Elijah,  or  of  Moses  1 
These  men  had  faith  ;  and  were  justified  by  faith.  If 
simply  to  he  justified  by  faith  be  the  matter  in  which  we 
are  "  Abraham's  seed,"  can  any  mortal  tell  why  we 
might  not  as  well  be  called  the   seed  of  Enoch,  or  of 


152  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

Noah,  or  of  Moses,  or  of  Elijah  1  Plainly  the  covenant 
and  its  promises  are  the  reason  why  we  are  AhrahanCa 
seed  :  and  Paul  accordingly  reasons  on  the  ground  of  the 
covenant  and  the  promise.  But  hear  his  conclusion, 
Gal.  iii.  29,  "  And  if  ye  he  Christ'' s^  then  are  ye  Abra- 
ham's seed,  AND  HEIRS  ACCORDING  TO  THE  PROMISE." 

I  mio;ht  rest  the  aroument  here  ;  but  the  word  of  God 
is  not  content  to  leave  the  matter  so.  It  would  make  it 
so  plain,  "  that  he  may  run  who  readeth  it."  Thus, 
the  prophets  uniformly  represent  the  kingdom  of  Zion, 
not  as  a  new  Church,  but  as  Israel  enlarged  by  the 
"  bringing  in''''  of  the  Gentiles.  To  say  all  that  might  be 
said  in  proof  of  this  would  be  to  repeat  nearly  all  the 
passages  in  the  prophets  which  speak  of  the  kingdom 
of  Christ.  For  your  satisfaction  I  refer  to  chap.  Ix.  of 
Isaiah,  and  onward  through  chap.  Ixv.  Here  is  no  cast- 
ing away  of  God's  people,  and  the  erection  of  an  entire 
new  polity.  It  is  Zion  ;  it  is  Jerusalem  that  arises  and 
shines  ;  her  light  being  come,  and  the  glory  of  the  Lord 
being  risen  upon  her.  The  Gentiles  come  to  her  light, 
and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  her  rising  :  all  they  gather 
themselves  and  come  to  thee.  These  prophecies  re- 
present the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  in  her  course  to  uni- 
versal empire  over  the  earth  :  but  it  is  still  the  ancient 
Zion,  and  the  ancient  Jerusalem.  It  is  still  the  covenant 
people  of  God,  at  a  period  when  the  promise  is  made 
sure  to  ALL  the  seed ;  "  not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the 
law,  but  that  which  is  of  faith  ;" — to  the  Gentiles,  upon 
whom  the  blessing  of  Abraham  comes  in  the  latter  day. 

The  apostles  are  not  less  distinct  in  this  matter  than 
the  prophets.  Thus  Paul,  Rom.  xi.  25,  ''  Blindness  in 
part  is  happened  unto  Israel  until  the  fulness  of  the  Gen- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  153 

tiles  he  come  i7j."  ("  In  ?''  Into  what '?  To  a  house 
that  is  thrown  down  and  cast  away  ?)  And  more  ex- 
pressly in  Eph.  ii.  12 — 22,  "  Wherefore  remember  that 
ye,  being  in  times  past  Gentiles  in  the  flesh," — "  that  at 
that  time  ye  were  without  Christ,  being  aliens  from  the 
Commonwealth  of  Israel,  and  strangers  from  the  cove- 
nant OF  PROMISE,  are  made  nigh  by  the  blood  of  Christ. 
For  he  is  our  peace,  who  hath  made  both  one,  having 
broken  down  the  middle  wall  of  partition.'''' — "  Now  there- 
fore ye  are  no  more  strangers  and  foreigners,  but  fellow 
citizens  with  the  saints,  and  of  the  household  of  god  ; 
and  are  built  upon  the  foundation  of  the  apostles  and  joro- 
phetSj  Jesus  Christ  himself  being  the  chief  corner-stone." 

I  know  there  are  those  to  whose  scheme  it  is  destruc- 
tion, to  consider  the  Abrahamic  covenant  as  pertaining 
at  all  to  us,  or  the  Abrahamic  and  the  Christian  Church 
one  and  the  same  :  and  hence,  when  we  mention  these 
things  they  profess  that  it  is  all  unintelligible,  and 
throw  them  by  contemptuously  as  an  idle  and  pernicious 
figment.  But  it  seems  to  me,  that  we  cannot  throw 
these  things  away  without  throwing  away  the  word  of 
God.  But  as  if  the  Scriptures  had  anticipated  what  ob- 
jections would  be  raised,  they  go  on,  as  though  deter- 
mined to  put  the  matter  beyond  a  question,  if  the  clearest 
representations  of  holy  writ  can  put  anything  beyond 
question. 

Thus,  in  Rom.  xi.,  "  God  hath  not  cast  away  his  peo- 
ple^'' whom  he  foreknew, — "  there  is  a  remnant,^^ — "  the 
rest  are  blinded."  "  ^7id  if  some  of  the  branches  be  bro- 
ken o/f"  (mark  !  is  the  trunk  destroyed  when  some  of 
the  branches  are  broken  ofFl)  "  and  thou,  being  a  wild 
olive    tree,  wort  graffcd  in  among   them''''    (graffed   into 


154  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

nothing  ?  and  among  nothing  ?)    "  and  with   them   par- 

TAKEST    OF    THE     ROOT    AND    FATNESS    of    the    oHve    treeV* 

(Tell  me,  ye  who  are  familiar  with  the  process  of  en- 
grafting, is  the  trunk  torn  up  and  cast  away,  when  the 
scion  is  graffed  in  among  its  green  branches,  and  with 
them  partakes  of  its  root  and  fatness  ?)  "  Boast  not 
against  the  branches  :  but  if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not 
the  root^  but  the  root  thee." 

Can  anything  more  strikingly  and  certainly  assert,  that 
the  old  trunk,  the  Abrahamic  Church,  is  not  thrown 
aside,  but  that  the  Christian  Church  draws  its  support 
and  sustenance  from  the  original  and  still  living  root,  the 
covenant  of  promise ,  which  secures  us  Christ ;  which 
secures  us  all  the  mercy  that  God  has  covenanted,  or 
which  comes  to  us  through  his  Son  ?  Could  a  voice 
from  heaven,  louder  than  seven  thunders,  and  distinct  as 
that  which  shall  call  the  world  to  judgment,  make  this 
matter  more  plain  ? 

One  more  passage  of  holy  writ,  and  I  have  done  on 
this  point.  The  passage  is  in  Rom.  iv.  16, 17.  "  There- 
fore it  is  of  faifhy  that  it  might  be  by  grace  ;  to  the 
end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to  all  the  seed ;  not 
to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to  that  also  which 
is  of  the  FAITH  of  Abraham,  who  is  the  father  of  us  all  ; 
as  it  is  written,  I  have  made  thee  a  father  of  many  na- 
tions." 

Here  1  rest  under  the  first  point ;  believing  the  proof 
to  be  plr.in  and  incontrovertible, — resting  on  the  sure 
authority  of  the  word  of  God  ;  that  the  Abrahamic  and 
the  Christian  Church  are  one  and  the  same  ;  built  upon 
the  same  covenant ;  saved  with  the  same  faith  ;  con- 
sidered in  the  word  of  God  as  one  and  the  same  Church. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  155 

I  proceed  to  the  second  point. 

II.  Circumcision  and  baptism  are  alike  the  seal  of  the 
same  covenant,  and  the  sign  of  the  same  Iking. 

God  appointed  circumcision  the  seal  of  his  covenant 
with  Abraham  in  these  words,  Gen.  xvii.  10,  "  This  is 
my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep  between  me  and  you, 
and  thy  seed  after  thee  :  Every  man  child  among  you 
shall  be  circumcised."  Here  circumcision  is  called  the 
"  covenant,''^  by  a  common  figure  of  placing  the  sign  for 
the  thing.  Every  one  understands  that  literally  circum- 
cision is  not  the  covenant.,  but  the  token,  or  sign,  or  seal 
of  the  covenant.  That  it  is  such  a  "  sign"  and  '•'■  seal" 
— and  what  it  signifies  we  are  not  left  to  conjecture. 
Paul  says,  Rom,  iv.  11,  "He"  (Abraham)  "received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
the  faith  which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised."     A 

"sign  !"    "  A  SEAL  !"  of  THE  RIGHTEOUSNESS  of FAITH  !" 

Is  not  this  "  righteousness  of  faith'''^  the  very  thing  which 
Paul  urges  as  the  ground  by  which  the  sinner  Is  justijiedj 
and  has  peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ; 
of  which  ".Justification"  he  cites  Abraham  as  an  illustrious 
example?  Of  this  "/a?V^"  Abraham  received  circumcision 
as  the  "seal."  And  what  was  the  import  of  the  seal  ? 
The  renewal  of  the  heart  and  of  the  spirit.  This  was 
the  true  circumcision,  of  which  the  outward  circumcision 
was  given  as  the  sign,  Rom.  ii.  29  :  "  Circumcision  is 
that  of  the  hea>t,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the  letter." 
That  is,  the  real  thing  denoted  by  the  sign,  circumcision 
— the  truly  bei7ig  what  circumcision  should  be  the  sign 
of  being,  is  to  be  cleansed  in  heait.  Of  this  it  is  the 
SIGN.  Of  the  remission  of  sin  and  of  the  acceptance  of  the 
soul  throusfh  the  righteousness  of  faith  it  is  the  "  seal." 


156  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

Now  baptism  is  the  seal  and  sign  of  the  same  things. 
Thus,  Acts  xxii,  16,  "  Arise  and  be  baptized,  cmd  wash 
away  thy  sms."  The  baptism  does  not  literally  "  wash 
away  sins  :"  but  it  is  the  sigUy  or  token^  or  seal,  of  the 
washing  away  of  sins  ;  and  of  acceptance  with  God,  in 
justification  through  the  righteousness  of  faith.  The  real 
washing  away  of  sins  is  accomplished  with  a  bloody 
baptism — by  the  "  sprinkling  of  the  blood  of  Christ :"  of 
this,  baptism  is  the  seal^  in  precisely  the  same  manner  as 
circumcision  was  the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith ; 
and  the  "  sprinkling  of  bloo'd  is  shadowed  forth  by  the 
sprinkling  of  water." 

And  what  is  the  import  of  this  seal  %  What  but  the 
washing  of  the  heart,  and  the  inward  cleansing  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  which  is  called  the  "  baptism  of  the 
Spirit,"  as  the  circumcision  of  the  heart  was  the  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  so  here  the  baptism  (or  cleansing) 
of  the  heart,  which  is  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is 
called,  "  the  vxtshing  of  regeneration^  and  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,'^'^  and  this  is  shadowed  forth  by  the 
"  washing  of  water,"  or  baptism  :  as  it  is  said  in  Tit. 
iii.  5,  ''  Christ  loved  the  church,  and  gave  himself  for  it, 
that  he  might  sanctify  and  cleanse  it  with  the  washing 
OF  WATER  by  the  word." 

We  have,  then,  baptism  and  circumcision;  each  a 
"  sign^''''  each  a  *'  seal,''"'  and  each  as  a  sign  and  as  a  seal 
signifying  precisely  the  same  thing. 

But  the  word  of  God  goes  further,  and  expressly  calls 
baptism  the  circumcision  of  Christ  (or  what  is  its  precise 
equivalent — Christian  circumcision).  Thus,  Col.  ii.  11, 
12,  "  In  whom  ye  are  circumcised,  with  the  circumcision 
made  without  hands  ;" — (Here  is  the  real  circumcision, 
the  inward  *'  circumcision  of  the  heart  and  of  the  Spi- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  157 

rit :" — "  the  washing  of  regeneration,  the  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost)" — "  in  putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins 
of  the  flesh,  by  the  circubicision  of  Christ  :  buried 
with  him  in  baptism."  Here  is  the  outward  circumci- 
sion of  Christ  (the  sign  of  the  inward) — bapftsm.  Again, 
Phil.  iii.  3,  Christians  are  called  "  the  circumcision,^^  in 
allusion  to  their  having  wrought  in  them  the  thing  signi- 
fied by  circumcision,  and  of  which  baptism  under  the 
dispensation  of  Christ  is  the  outward  sign.  "  For  we 
are  the  circumcision,  which  worship  God  in  the  spirit, 
and  rejoice  in  Christ  Jesus,  and  have  no  confidence  in 
the  flesh." 

The  Abrahamic  Church  had  a  "  sea/"  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith.  "  The  Christian  Church  is  the  same  :  has 
the  Christian  Church  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  .? 
If  the  Scriptures  may  be  trusted,  it  has :  baptism,  signi- 
fying the  same  thing  as  circumcision,  and,  in  so  many 
words,  called  the  circumcision  of  Christ." 

It  is  manifest,  therefore,  that  baptism  is  substituted 
for  circumcision  : 

It  is  a  seal  of  the  same  covenant  ; 

Ordained  for  the  same  church  ; 

It  means  the  same  thing  ; 

It  is  employed  for  the  same  use  : 

While  circumcision  is  passed  away. 

Here  is  the  reality  of  substitution.  If  any  dislike  the 
word  substitution,  1  care  not  to  dispute  for  the  word. 
Baptism  is  a  sign,  and  but  a  sign  ;  used  as  a  seal ;  hold- 
ing the  same  place  ;  having  the  same  meaning  ;  fulfilling 
the  same  use  ;  under  the  same  covenant  ;  and  in  the 
sam.e  Church  :  while  circumcision  is  passed  away.  Here 
is  the  reality  of  substitution.     If  any  dislike  the  word, 


158  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

let  the  word  be  dropped  :  the  reality  remains,  based  upon 
the  word  of  God.  Baptism  is  now,  what  circumcision 
was  once — a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  and  of 
God's  promise  to  be  the  God  of  such,  and  of  their  seed 
after  them.  Christianit}'-  has  no  other  sign  or  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith.* 

Now  what  would  those,  who  received  the  command 
to  apply  this  new  seal,  understand  with  regard  to  the 
subjects  to  whom  it  was  to  be  applied  ?  They  well  un- 
derstood the  Abrahamic  and  the  Christian  Church  to  be 
one  and  the  same  :  built  on  the  same  covenant,  saved 
with  the  same  faith,  and  regarded  in  the  w^ord  of  God  as 
one  and  the  same  Church.  Circumcision,  the  seal  of  the 
righteousness  of  faith,  was,  by  divine  command,  applied 
to  children.  When  a  Gentile  was  proselyted,  the  same 
seal  was  applied  to  him  and  to  his  children.  In  every 
covenant  and  promise  of  God,  their  children  had  been 
included  :  and  this  fact  must  have  deeply  impressed  their 
minds,  that  everywhere  throughout  the  law  and  the  pro- 
phets, God  was  still  accustomed  to  join  in  the  same  poli- 
ty the  parents  and  the  children.  To  exclude  the  children 
is  a  strange  thing,  especially  from  a  seal  of  the  same 
covenant,  which  still  retained  in  its  promises  the  blessings 
promised  to  children.  Here  is  a  new  seal  of  the  same 
covenant — the  same  covenant,    only  enlarged^  extending 

*  It  has  been  objected  that  circumcision  was  applied  only  to 
males.  Might  not  this  be  among  the  reasons  for  a  change  of  the 
seal?  A  distinction  was  made  between  male  and  female  under 
the  Mosaic  dispensation,  as  between  Jew  and  Greek,  bond  and 
free  ;  but  under  Christ  this  distinction  was  abolished,  "  There  is 
neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither  bond  nor  free  ;  there  is 
neither  male  nor:  female P  Hence— the  seal  remaining— there  was 
a  necessity  for  changing  its  form. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  159 

the  blessino;  of  Abraham  to  the  Gentiles  throuo-h  faith. 
Does  the  ratification  and  the  enlargement  of  the  covenant 
cut  off  the  children,  while  nothing  is  revoked  and 
nothing  changed  save  the  form  of  the  seal  1  Here  is  a 
new  form  of  the  seal,  but  it  has  the  same  signification. 
The  command  is — "  Go  teach"  (make  disciples  of)  "  all 
nations,  baptizing  them."  Had  the  command  been — go 
preach  to  the  gentiles — the  "  Gospel"  vs^hich  was  before 
preached  to  Abraham,  Gal.  iii.  8 — circumcising  them  ; 
"  he  that  believeth"  and  is  circumcised  "  shall  be  saved  ;" 
there  could  be  no  possibility  of  doubting  that  the  infants 
of  believing  parents  are  to  be  included.  But  how  is  the 
case  altered  when  they  are  to  apply  another  sign  of  the 
same  design  and  signification  \  Is  the  case  altered  at  all  \ 
Will  they  not  understand  it  as  referring  to  the  same  sub- 
jects ?  So  they  mus? naturally  understand  it :  such  would 
be  its  inevitable  interpretation,  unless  there  were  an  ex- 
press exception  of  such  infants  in  the  command.  With- 
out some  warrant,  it  is,  methinks,  impossible  that  the 
disciples  would  presume  to  take  away  from  parents  and 
children  the  privileges  granted  to  them  by  the  charter  of 
Jehovah.  These  of  necessity  stand  till  Jehovah  himself 
takes  them  away.  The  chartered  privileges  remaining 
to  them,  the  seal  of  that  charter,  as  it  was  once  theirs, 
would  remain,  even  though  the  form  of  the  seal  be  chang- 
ed. 

This  has  been  illustrated  by  a  homely  similitude,  and 
yet  a  similitude  so  much  in  point  that  I  wall  copy  it. 

A  man  orders  his  servants  to  mark  the  sheep  of  his 
flock  with  a  bloody  sign  ;  and  is  careful  to  add,  see  that 
you  apply  this  sign  to  all  the  lambs  also.  Afterwards,  he 
sees  fit  to  dispense  with  the  bloody  sign  made  with  a 


160  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

knife  in  the  flesh,  and  ordains  that  his  servants  mark  his 
sheep  with  paint :  but  he  says  nothing  about  the  lambs. 
Will  those  servants,  because  the  marking  is  a  "  positive 
institution,"  argue  that  the  lambs  are  no  longer  to  be 
marked  ?  As  they  buy  more  sheep  with  lambs,  will  thf.y 
mark  the  sheep,  but  say  they  have  no  warrant  for  marking 
the  lambs  1  The  contrary.  And  so,  from  the  very  cir- 
cumstances of  the  case,  the  disciples  of  Christ,  under- 
standing the  design  and  import  of  baptism,  and  having 
been  previously  accustomed  to  extend  another  sign,  of 
the  same  import  and  use,  to  children,  would  naturally  in- 
terpret the  command  to  baptize,  as  implying  the  baptism 
of  infants.  Had  it  been  objected,  that  men  are  to  believe 
and  be  baptized ;  and  that  even  "  saving  faith"  is  to  go 
before  baptism  in  the  case  of  adults,  they  would  still  re- 
member, that  infants  could  no  more  believe  in  Abraham's 
day  than  they  can  now  ;  and  yet,  at  God's  command,  they 
received  "  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
faith  ;"  and  that  the  objection  would  have  had  precisely  the 
same  force  against  circum.cision  then,  that  it  has  against 
baptism  now.  They  would  have  remembered,  moreover, 
that  if  the  want  of  a  capacity  for  *' believing"  should 
hinder  baptism,  the  same  reasoning  would  prove  that  they 
cannot  be  saved  :  since  the  Gospel  says, "  He  that  helievelh 
and  is  baptized  shall  be  saved  ;"  "  He  that  heUeveth  7iot, 
shall  be  damned  ;"  and  infants  cannot  believe.  But  a 
reasoning  which  proves  too  much,  and  proves  what  is 
false,  proves  nothing  at  all :  and  the  objection  falls  to  the 
ground. 

Another  circumstance  would  have  had  weight  upon 
their  minds  in  all  questions  touching  the  relations  of 
children  untler  the  Gospel  dispensation.     vSome  parents 


INFANT    BAPTIS^T.  161 

once  brought  little  children  (infants,  says  Luke  xviii.  15) 
to  Christ,  that  he  should  lay  his  hands  on  them  and  bless 
them.  His  disciples  forbade  them.  They  understood 
that  Christ's  kingdom  was  to  rest  upon  faith  in  the  soul, 
and  upon  the  intelligent  obedience  of  men  to  his  precepts ; 
but  how  could  children  have  this  faith  or  this  knowledge  1 
They  appear  to  have  come  to  the  same  conclusion  con- 
cerning bringing  little  children  to  Christ  that  he  might  touch 
them,  that  many  in  these  days  arrive  at  concerning  the 
baptism  of  little  children  ;  — "  what  good  can  it  do  to  an 
unconscious  babe  V  At  all  events,  they  forbade  these 
parents  to  bring  their  infants  to  Christ  for  this  purpose.  But 
Christ  rebuked  them  ;  he  called  the  little  children  to  him  ; 
he  took  them  in  his  arms  ;  he  blessed  them  ;  he  said,  "  Suf- 
fer little  children  to  come unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not ;  for 
of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  Heaven.''^  He  meant  by  the 
kingdom  of  Heaven,  either  his  earthhj  Church  or  his 
heavenly  ;  it  matters  not  which  for  the  argument.  If  the 
heavenly  Church  is,  in  part,  made  up  of  such,  then  this 
was  a  sufficient  reason  for  Christ  why  he  should  take 
them  in  his  arms  and  bless  them,  and  rebuke  those  who 
would  forbid  them  to  be  brought  to  him.  It  is  the  very 
reason  that  he  alleged  ;  and  he  himself  drew  these  con- 
clusions from  the  reason.  What  an  argument  for  bring- 
ing little  children  to  Christ  now — that  he  may  seal  them 
as  his  own  ;  and  that  visibly  as  he  did  when  he  took  them 
in  his  arms  !  But  if  by  "  Kingdom  of  Heave Ji''''  he  meant 
his  "  earthly  Church,''^  then  the  argument  is  at  an  end  : 
they  are  to  be  baptized  on  this  express  warrant. 

Those  who  wish  to  prevent  this  passage  from  bearing 
on  the  question  at  issue  say,  that  by  thew^ords  "  ofsuch,^^ 
our  Lord  meant — not  of  such  infants^  but  of  such  "  sim- 


162  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

pie-hearted  and  humble  persons"  is  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven. This  would  be  a  good  reason  wh}'-  "  simple-heart- 
ed and  humble  persons"  should  not  be  forbidden  to  come 
to  Christ ; — but  the  fact  that  "  simple-hearted  and  hum- 
ble" adults  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God,  is  no  reason 
why  Christ  should  take  infants  in  his  arms  and  bless 
them. 

It  is  said,  we  forget  that  Jesus  did  not  baptize  them. 
No,  we  do  not  forget  that  "  Jesus  himself  baptized  not^ 
but  his  disciples."  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  assert 
or  to  suppose  that  these  infants  were  baptized  at  all. 
Christ's  disciples  were  sent  at  first  to  preach,  not  a  Re- 
demption completed,  but  to  preach,  saying,  "  The  king- 
dom of  heaven  is  at  hand.''''  T\ie\v  final  commission  was 
after  the  resurrection  of  our  Lord  ;  and  at  that  time  he 
instituted  his  baptism,  wdiich  appears  to  be  essentially 
different  from  the  baptism  practised  before.  The  disci- 
ples of  Christ  baptized  newly  made  disciples  before  this, 
but  it  seems  to  have  been  John's  ^'  baptism  of  repentance," 
Acts.  xix.  4,  and  not  the  baptism  instituted  by  Christ  as 
the  new  seal  of  his  covenant.  Grant  it,  if  our  brethren 
please,  that  these  infants  were  not  baptized.^  This  con- 
duct of  Christ,  and  this  rebuke  which  he  administered  to 
those  who  would  forbid  infants,  would  at  least  teach  his 
disciples  no  more  to  reject  infants  from  the  blessings  of 
the  Christian  religion,  under  the  notion  that  infants  can- 
not believe.     It  would  teach  them  no  more  to  forbid  pa- 

*  Though  as  much  is  said  of  their  baptism  as  there  is  of  the  bap- 
tism of  any  particular  adults  from  this  time  forward  during  the 
life  of  Christ,  or  indeed  during  the  previous  part  of  his  ministry, 
no  particular  cases  are  mentioned.  Silence  in  one  case  proves  as 
much  as  in  another. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  163 

rents  to  bring  them  to  Christ  for  his  blessing.  It  would 
teach  them  to  be  cautious  how  they  forbade  infants  from 
the  privileges  which  God  had  chartered  to  them  in  his 
covenant.  It  was  designed  to  teach  them  how  Christ 
regarded  infants  ;  and  the  remembrance  of  this  would  ne- 
cessarily bear  upon  the  interpretation  which  they  would 
give  with  regard  to  the  application  of  the  new  seal, 
whether  to  apply  it  to  infants  or  not. 

But  how  they  did  in  fact  interpret  the  law,  I  come  now 
to  show  under  the  third  head. 

III.  "  That  the  children  of  believers,  as  they  were  con- 
nected with  the  Ahrahamic  Church,  are  recognized  in  the 
JSew  Testament  as  sustaining  the  same  relation  to  the 
Christian  Church. 

"  For  the  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife, 
and  the  unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband,  else 
loere  your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy.'^''  1. 
Cor,  vii.  14.  Of  course  this  cannot  mean  that  the  chil- 
dren are  spiritually  holy,  simply  because  one  of  the  pa- 
rents is  a  believer.  The  word  holy  here,  is  the  opposite 
of  unclean  with  which  it  is  contrasted.  And  the  word 
unclean  (the  same  in  the  original  language  as  well  as  ours) 
is  used  in  Acts  x.  14,  15, 28,  and  Acts  xi.  3,  S,  9,  in  a  way 
which  fully  explains  the  use  of  it  here.  Peter  was  to 
be  prepared  to  go  and  instruct  and  baptize  Cornelius,  a 
Gentile.  A  vision  was  given  him,  of  a  great  sheet,  knit 
at  the  four  corners,  wherein  were  all  manner  of  four- 
footed  beasts,  and  creeping  things,  and  fowls  of  the  air. 
And  there  came  a  voice  to  him,  sajnng,  Rise,  Peter,  kill 
and  eat.  But  Peter  said.  Not  so,  Lord,  fori  have  never 
eaten  anything  that  is  common  or  unclean.  And  the 
voice  spoke  to  him  aoain  ;  What  God  hath  cleansed  that 


164  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

call  not  thou  common.  So  Peter  answered  the  messen 
ger  of  Cornelius,  God  hath  showed  me,  that  I  should  no» 
call  any  man  common  or  unclean.  But  for  going  to 
Cornelius,  a  Gentile,  they  that  were  of  the  circumcision 
contended  with  him  (as  Peter  might  have  done  with 
another  man,  had  he  not  been  better  instructed  by  the 
vision) — saying,  thou  wentest  in  to  men  uncircumcised, 
and  didst  eat  with  them.  Then  Peter  rehearsed  the  mat- 
ter from  the  beginning,  and  told  how  the  voice  answered 
from  heaven,  saying,  What  God  hath  cleansed,  that  call 
not  thou  common.  The  point  is  this  :  to  the  Israelites, 
the  Gentiles  had  been  considered  as  unclean,  out  of  the 
pale  of  their  society,  and  debarred  from  the  covenant  and 
worship  of  the  people  of  God  :  or,  as  Paul  expresses  it, 
Eph.  ii.  12 — 22,  "  Gentiles  in  the  flesh, — strangers  from 

THE  COVENANT  OF  PROMISE." 

With  this  explanation  turn  to  the  passage  under  con- 
sideration ; — "  Else  were  your  children  unclean'''' — cut  off 
from  the  commonwealth  of  Christ's  visible  Church,  and 
debarred  from  the  seal  of  the  covenant,  as  Pagans  ;  or, 
as  says  Matthew  Henry,  "  They  would  he  heathen,  out 
of  the  pale  of  the  Church  and  covenant  of  God.''''  The 
Apostle  bases  his  argument  upon  a  fact  which  he  as- 
sumes as  well  known  and  universally  recognized  in  prac- 
tice ;  that  the  children  of  believing  parents  are  so  far  a 
"  iJofy  seed," — and  in  that  sense  "holy"  (as  opposed 
to  "  unclean)  y — that  they  are  entitled  to  the  covenant 
privileges  belonging  to  the  "  household"  of  faith.  Dod- 
dridge says  (and  with  him  agree  the  great  mass  of  the 
most  distinguished  commentators,  as  well  as  the  great 
mass  of  the  Christian  world) — "  On  the  matnrest  and  the 
most  impartial  consideration  of  this  text,  1  must  refer  it  to 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  165 

Infant  Baptism.''^  Indeed,  this  is  the  natural  interpreta- 
tion of  the  passage,  and  the  most  rigid  scrutiny  of  the 
use  of  the  words  in  the  original  language  not  only  bears 
out  this  interpretation,  but  condemns  every  other  that  has 
been  advanced.  And  so  surely  does  this  natural  inter- 
pretation prove  Infant  Baptism  to  be  an  ordinance  of  God, 
that  opposers  of  the  ordinance  have  felt  that  there  is  no 
rehef  but  to  set  aside  the  interpretation.  I  have  read 
many  subtle  and  earnest  comments  and  essays,  written 
with  much  talent  and  pains, — to  set  aside  this  interpreta- 
tion ;  but  I  have  not  yet  found  one  which  attempts  to  re- 
concile it  with  a  denial  of  the  ordinance. 

The  many  ingenious,  jarring,  and  mutually  destructive 
glosses,  which  have  been  put  upon  this  passage  to  avoid 
the  dreaded  conclusion,  show  how  sensibly  they  feel  the 
difficulty  ;  and  how  hard  they  find  it  to  hit  upon  one 
which  shall  seem  tenable  or  plausible  to  all  even  among 
themselves.  The  one  most  commonly  received  and  re- 
lied on  is  that  of  the  famous  Dr.  Gill ;  which  supposes 
the  Apostle  to  mean,  "  Else  were  your  children  illegiti- 
mcite^  but  now  are  they  legitimate.''''  The  absurdities  of 
this  gloss  are  manifold  and  palpable.  It  is  sufficient  to 
mention  one  or  two.  1.  The  terms  which  he  renders 
"  legitimate"  and  "  illegitimate"  have  no  such  meaning 
anywhere  else  in  any  author,  sacred  or  profane  ;  of  course 
the  rendering  is  a  sheer  invention^— i\\Q  effort  of  a  subtle 
wit  to  extricate  itself  from  an  unpleasant  difficulty.  It  is 
impossible  that  those  to  .whom  the  Apostle  wrote  should 
understand  him  to  mean  so.  It  would  be  just  as  much 
to  the  point,  and  no  grosser  license,  to  render  the  word, 
"  Else  were  your  children  cripples^  but  now  are  they 
sound.''^     2.  The  gloss  proceeds  upon  the  ineffable  absur- 


166  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

dity  of  proving  the  lawfulness  of  the  marriage  by  the 
legitimacy  of  the  children.  A  conclusion,  to  avoid 
which  such  absurdities  must  be  encountered,  is  surely 
irresistible. 

While  the  substance  of  this  gloss  is  retained  in  the 
text  of  the  "  Scripture  Guide  to  Baptism.,'*^  published  by 
"  the  Baptist  General  Tract  Society,"  another  gloss  is  in- 
troduced in  a  note  (in  some  editions,  in  the  Appetidix)  by 
the  authority  of  the  ''  Directors"  of  the  Society.  Both 
glosses  cannot,  of  course,  be  true.  By  which  they  intend 
to  abide,  I  know  not — whether  by  the  text  or  note  :  or 
which  they  wish  us  to  receive  and  hold  as  the  truth  ;  or 
whether  to  plant  a  foot  on  each,  as  doubting  whether 
either  is  sound  :  or  whether  to  retain  both,  that  one  may 
meet  some  minds  that  are  not  met  by  the  other.  The 
ncte  proposes  to  consider  the  passage  not  as  referring  to 
the  lawfulness  of  the  marriage  or  to  the  legitimacy  or 
illegitimac}^  of  the  children,  but  to  consider  it  as  though 
the  argument  were,  If  a  believer  put  away  a  wife  or  a 
husband  as  an  unbeliever^  he  must  put  away  his  children 
also.  But  this  is  not  the  argument.  The  argument  of 
the  Apostle  is  the  reverse  of  this.  He  assumes  that  the 
children  are  holy  or  clean  :  and  from  this  fact  assumed 
as  admitted  and  well  known,  be  convinces  the  Corin- 
thians that  the  believing  husband  need  not  put  away  his 
unbelieving  wife,  since,  in  that  case,  a  consequence  would 
follow,  w^hich  (he  assumes)  they  know  cannot  follow. 
The  argument  of  the  ritual  holiness  of  the  children,  is 
based  upon  the  fact  of  such  children's  having  been 
treated  as  a  "  Holy  seed"  connected  with  the  Church  of 
God.  The  reference,  in  such  case,  can  be  to  no  other  than 
to  Infant  Baptism  so  notoriously  practised  in  the  Church. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  167 

I  cannot  but  think,  had  the  Apostle  meant  to  say 
what  the  note  represents  him  as  saying,  that  rather  than 
leaving  that  meaning  to  be  inferred  by  a  coarse  of  reason- 
ing which  requires  so  many  ages  to  produce  one  mind 
even  to  guess  it  out,  he  would  have  said  so  directly,  in- 
stead of  using  the  circuitous  way  of  talking  about  "  un- 
clean" and  ^'  holy  ;"  words  which  would  naturally  mis- 
lead his  hearers,  which  actually  misled  the  ancient 
church,  as  well  as  so  many  modern  believers,  and  indeed 
the  great  mass  of  the  whole  Christian  world  ;  for  in  truth 
there  are  as  yet  few  even  among  the  Baptists,  that  have 
ever  understood  the  passage  according  to  the  tenor  of  the 
note  in  question. 

The  common  interpretation,  therefore,  stands  :  and  I 
adduce  this  text  as  evidence  that  as  the  children  of  be- 
lievers had  been  joined  in  covenant  privileges  with  the 
Abrahamic  Church,  they  are  recognized  in  the  New 
Testament  as  sustaining  the  same  relation  to  the  Chris- 
tian Church. 

Turn  now  to  another  source  of  argument.  But  first 
let  me  make  some  preliminary  remarks  to  show  the  value 
of  the  evidence,  and  to  vindicate  it  from  objections  that 
have  been  raised  against  it. 

The  Sabbath  was  instituted  at  the  creation  :  and  though 
iveeks  are  mentioned  in  the  sacred  history,  the  Sabbath 
is  not  again  mentioned  till  Moses :  yet  how  important 
the  Sabbath  was  considered  in  the  sight  of  God  is  well 
known.  Again,  it  is  not  mentioned  from  the  time  ot 
Joshua  till  the  reign  of  David,  and  yet  (as  says  Dr. 
Humphrey),  "  It  will  be  admitted  that,  beyond  all  doubt, 
the  pious  Judges  of  Israel  remembered  the  Sabbath  day 
to  keep  it  holy."     Moreover,  the  Bible  says  nothing  of 


16S 


LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 


circumcision  from  a  little  after  Moses  till  the  days  of 
Jeremiah,  a  period  of  eight  hundred  years  ;  yet  doubtless 
circumcision  was  practised  all  the  while. 

In  like  manner,  our  Missionary  Herald,  each  volume 
of  which  is  twenty  times  as  large  as  the  book  of  Acts,  is 
now  in  the  progress  of  the  36th  volume.  In  the  whole 
of  these,  containing  the  journals  of  so  many  Missionaries, 
narrating  every  important  incident  with  so  much  minute- 
ness, and  continued  for  so  many  years,  there  are  very 
few  instances  mentioned  of  Infant  Baptism.  I  have  not 
the  means  at  hand  of  ascertaining  how  many,  but  though 
I  have  long  been  familiar  with  them,  and  have  long  ob- 
served the  fact  with  some  curiosity,  and  have  specially 
examined  not  a  little,  I  am  not  able  to  find  or  to  call  to 
mind  more  than  a  very  few  instances  previously  to  the 
last  two  years.  But  we  know  that  the  Missionaries  of 
the  American  Board  are  all  Peedo-baptists.  The  paucity 
of  these  records  of  infant  baptisms  in  their  letters  does 
not  prove  that  they  do  not  baptize  infants  :  v/e  know  they 
do  ;  and  once  in  a  while  the  fact  is  mentioned,  but  it  is 
rare,  though  their  converts  amount  to  many  thousands. 

Suppose  now,  that,  at  the  present  time,  you  find  a 
pamphlet  of  some  twenty  or  thirty  pages,  like  a  single 
monthly  number  of  the  Missionary  Herald,  only  half  as 
large — covering  the  ground  of  some  fifty  years,  and 
giving  an  account  of  the  doings  of  some  Missionaries  of 
whom  you  have  never  heard  before.  The  question  is 
asked.  Are  they  Baptist  Missionaries  ;  or  do  they  baptize 
the  infant  children  of  believing  parents  1  On  examining 
the  pamphlet  we  find  such  records  as  these :  at  such  a 
time  '^  I  baptized — in  the  night — a  Jailor  and  all  his  :" 
at  such  a  time  "  Lydia  and  her  household;"  at  such  a 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  169 

time,  "  I  baptized  also  the  household  of  Stephanas." 
Nothing  is  said  as  to  whether  they  were  all  adults,  or 
whether,  as  is  more  common,  there  were  children  in  these 
households.  Only  this  is  certain,  that  if  there  were 
children  they  were  certainly  baptized.  Suppose  further, 
that  at  this  crisis  we  discover  copious  letters  of  these 
Missionaries,  written  to  their  converts  from  heathenism  ; 
in  which  letters  they  use  the  term  household  just  as  we 
do  the  v/ord  family.  Are  they  Baptist  Missionaries  '? 
The  presumption  is  that  they  are  not.  You  fmd  a  diffi- 
culty, which  must  be  removed  before  you  can  believe 
that  they  are  Baptists.  Moreover,  you  take  the  journals 
of  the  Baptist  Missionaries  of  fifty  or  a  hundred  times 
the  size  of  this  newly  discovered  pamphlet,  and  a  hundred 
times  more  full.  You  do  not  learn  that  they  ever  give 
an  account  of  the  Baptism  of  a  single  household:  though 
you  can  understand  how  desirable  it  would  be  to  make 
such  a  record  as  frequent  in  their  journals  as  possible  : 
and  how  readily  they  would  be  brought  forward  in  argu- 
ment as  often  as  they  might  occur. 

You  now  make  another  discovery :  viz. — that  these 
unknown  Missionaries  consider  the  Abrahamic  and  the 
Christian  Church  the  same.  Now  let  one  passage  be 
found  in  a  single  letter  of  theirs  to  one  of  their  Churches 
gathered  from  heathenism,  to  this  effect :  "  The  unbe- 
lieving wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband,  and  the  un- 
believing husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  else  were 
your  children  iincltan^  but  now  are  they  holy  ;"  let  it  be 
proved  that  they  familiarly  use  these  terms  in  the  Jewish 
sense  : — let  but  one  such  passage  as  this  be  found,  and  the 
question  is  settled  they  baptize  children.  Who  could 
ask  for  more  convincing  proof,  unless  he  is  determined 


170  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

that  nothing  shall  prove  it,  save  an  express  declaration  in  so 
many  words,  or  a  miracle  ?  I  might  appeal  to  any  man 
accustomed  to  sifting  and  weighing  evidence  in  our  courts 
of  justice,  is  not  this  valid  proof  of  the  fact?  Were 
it  a  question  of  fact  to  be  decided  by  mere  impartial 
jurors  in  our  courts  of  law — whether  these  Missionaries 
practised  Infant  Baptism  ;  could  there  be  a  doubt  how — 
on  this  evidence — the  question  would  be  decided  ?  Could 
there  be  a  doubt  that  the  verdict  would  be,  These  men 
believe  in  Infant  Baptism  and  practise  it  ? 

Make  it  known  now,  that  these  men  are  the  Apostles 
of  our  Lord,  acting  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  the  interpretation  of  the  law  of  baptism,  which 
extends  baptism  to  the  infants  of  believing  parents,  has  a 
dinine  warrant :  and  Infant  Baptism^  is  an  ordinance  of 
God. 

Strong  as  this  evidence  is,  it  is  further  corroborated  in 
the  fact, 

IV.    That  the  whole  Church  re?ei'ced  infant  baptism — 

AS  SEVERAL  OF  THE  EARLY  FATHERS  DECLARE,  AND  AS  THE 
CHURCH  AT  LARGE  BELIEVED, — FROM  THE  APOSTLES  :  AND 
THAT  THE  WHOLE  CHURCH,  TOGETHER  WITH  ALL  SECTS  OF 
HERETICS,  PRACTISED  IT,  WITH  NOT  A  MAN  TO  RAISE  HIS 
VOICE  AGAINST  ITS  DIVINE  WARRANT  FOR  MORE  THAN  THIRTY 
GENERATIONS  AFTER  ChRIST. 

Some  of  the  apostles  and  evangelists  were  spared  to 
the  Church  a  long  time,  and  the  interval  between  the  last 
of  them  and  the  earliest  of  the  Christian  fathers  is  very 
brief.  Thus,  Peter  and  Paul  lived  till  about  a.  d.  68  ; 
Jude,  Thomas,  and  Luke,  till  about  a.  d.  74  ;  and  John 
lived  till  about  a.  d.  100. 

Before  this  last  date  Justin  Martyr  was  born,  in  the 


IxVFANT    BAPTISM.  171 

midst  of  Christians,  at  Neapolis  in  Samaria.  About  40 
years  after  the  death  of  John  he  published  his  first  Apo- 
logy for  the  Christians,  addressed  to  Antoninus  Pius.  In 
that  Apology  he  says,  "Many  persons  of  both  sexes,  some 
sixty,  some  seventy  years  old,  were  made  disciples  to 
Christ  from  childhood'''  (sx  navdoip) — the  same  word  that 
Luke  uses  where  he  says,  Jesus  took  infants  in  his  arras. 
On  this  passage,  President  D wight  justly  remarlis  that 
"  there  never  was  any  other  mode  of  making  disciples 
from  infancy  except  by  baptism.''''  Dr.  Pond  also  says, 
"  they  were  doubtless  made  such  (disciples)  by  bap- 
tism :"  for  the  same  word,  "  made  disciples"  (sjnadeisvOr]. 
o-ttJ^),  is  used  by  Christ  in  the  commission,  "  Go  and  dis- 
ciple all  nations,  baptizing  them." 

Irenaus  was  born  about  the  time  of  Justin.  He  was 
a  pupil  of  Polycarp  of  Smyrna,  who  had  been  a  pupil  of 
the  Apostle  John.  Irenseus  says,  "  I  can  describe  the 
spot  on  which  Polycarp  sat  and  expounded  ;  his  going 
in,  and  coming  out ;  the  manner  of  his  life  ;  the  figure 
of  his  body  ;  the  sermons  he  preached  to  the  multitudes  ; 
how  he  related  to  us  his  converse  with  John,  and  the  rest 
of  those  who  had  seen  the  Lord ;  how  he  mentioned 
their  particular  expressions,  and  what  things  he  had 
heard  from  them  of  the  Lord  ;  of  his  miracles  and  of  his 
doctrines."*  Irenseus  says,  "  Christ  came  to  save  all 
persons  by  himself;  all  I  say,  who  by  him  are  regenerat- 
ed unto  God  ;  infants,  and  little  ones,  and  youths,  and 
elder  persons."  He  constantly  employs  the  term  rege- 
nerated, for  baptized ;  and  so  means  here  :  thus,  when 
speaking  of  our  Lord's  authorizing  his  Apostles  to  bap- 
tize, hp  says,|  "  When  he  gave  his  disciples  the  power 
*  Gray,  p.  57  f  Ibid.,  p.  58. 


172  LAW  OF  BAPTISiNT. 

of  recjencraling  unto  God  he  said  unto  them,  Go  teach  all 
nations,  bapiizhig  them."  Justin  uses  the  term  in  the 
saL.^  sense  ;  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  the  Christian 
con-  rts,  he  says,  "  They  are  conducted  by  us  to  a 
place  where  there  is  water,  and  are  regenerated  in  the 
same  manner  in  which  we  w^ere  regenerated ;  for  they 
are  then  washed  in  the  name  of  God  the  Father  and  Lord 
of  tiic  universe,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of 
the  ^'"oly  Spirit.* 

Whether  these  fathers  meant  by  "  regenerated^'''^  what 
some  later  ones  did  mean,  that  baptism  confers  an  inward 
reo-eneration,  so  that  those  who  are  baptized  are  simul- 
taneously and  inwardly  regenerated  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
it  is  foreign  to  my  purpose  now  to  inquire.  Whatever 
were  their  views  of  doctrine^  they  are  certainly  good  -wit- 
nesses with  regard  to  a  matter  of  fact,  viz.,  whether 
infants  were  in  their  day  baptized  :  and  such  is  the  clear 
import  of  their  testimony. 

Tertullian  was  born  a  little  later  than  Irenseus,  about 
A.  D.  145.  He  ran  into  all  manner  of  vagaries  of  doc- 
trine ;  but  this  invalidates  not  his  testimony  with  regard 
to  a  matter  of/ac/,  whether  the  Church  in  his  day  bap- 
tized infants.  He  advises  the  delay  of  baptism  not  only 
in  the  case  of  children,  but  of  youths  and  unmarried  peo- 
ple. In  the  case  of  little  children  he  says,  "  For  what 
need,  except  in  case  of  necessity^  that  their  godfathers 
should  be  in  danger  1"  Because  they  may  "either  fail 
of  their  promises  l)y  death,  or  they  may  be  deceived 
b}^  a  child's  proving  of  a  wicked  disposition."  He  suppos- 
ed that  the  act  of  baptism,  washed  away  sins  ;  and  there- 
fore would  have  not  only  infants,  but  youth  and  unmar- 
*  Gray,  p.  58. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  173 

ried  persons  delay,  till  they  should  be  less  exposed  to 
temptations,  that  they  might  have  the  greater  bent  ..  of 
the  baptism,  and  have  a  smaller  score  of  sins  to  answer 
for  afterwards.*  He  say^  of  infants  :  "  What  need  their 
mnocent  age  make  such  haste  to  the  forgiveness  of  sins" 
(  viz.  by  baptism).  He  thus  fully  recognizes  the  practice 
of  Infant  Baptism  as  in  common  use.  "  J^Jid  speaks  against 
it^^^  say  our  Baptist  brethren. — True,  he  does  :  but  he 
speaks  against  it  as  against  a  thing  in  common  use.  The 
question  is  not  whether  Tertullian  is  against  it  or  for  it ; 
but  whether  it  was  in  use  in  his  day.  He  does  not  pre- 
tend that  baptism  is  an  innovation,  or  unlawful,  or  that 
it  had  not  been  in  use  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles.  He 
pleads  for  delay,  on  the  ground  of  advantage,  and  on  the 
same  grouna  pleads  that  youths  and  unmarried  persons 
would  be  gainers  by  delay.  He  places  the  reason  for 
delay,  in  both  instances,  on  the  same  ground.  But  surely 
our  Baptist  brethren  will  not  receive  his  reasons  for  delay 
in  either  case.  His  testimony  to  the  fact  remains  ;  the 
more  unquestionable  for  its  being  incidental,  and  for  his 
whimsical  bias  against  it. 

Origen  wsls  born  185  years  after  Christ.  In  his  homily 
on  Luke  xiv.  he  says,  ^'  Lifanis  are  baptized  for  the  for- 
giveness of  sins."  Again  in  his  homily  on  Levit.  viii.  he 
says,  "  What  is  the  reason  why  the  baptism  of  the  Church 
which  is  given  for  the  remission  for  sins,  is  by  the  usao-e 
of  the  Church  given  to  infants  also  V  He  is  endeavor- 
ing to  establish  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  adduces 
the  practice  of  Infant  Baptism  as  a  proof  of  it.     Again, 

*  Among  other  strange  notions  that  he  fell  into,  one  was,  that 
sin  after  baptism  could  never  be  pardoned. — Hence  he  advised  the 
delay  of  baptism. 


174  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

in  his  comment  on  Romans  :  "  For  this  also  it  was,  that 
the  Church  had  from  the  Apostles  a  tradition  to  give  bap- 
tism to  infants."* 

Ambrose^  Chrysostom,  Cyprian,  and  Gregory  Nazian- 
zen  speak  expressly  of  the  practice  of  Infant  Bap- 
tism. 

Augustine,  in  reference  to  the  Pelagians,  says,  "  Since 
they  grant  that  infants  must  be  baptized,  as  not  being 
able  to  resist  the  authority  of  the  Church  which  was 
doubtless  delivered  by  our  Lord  and  his  Apostles,  they 
must  consequently  grant  that  they  stand  in  need  of  the 
benefit  of  the  mediator."! 

Ao;ain,  Augustine  against  the  Donatists,  speaking  of 
the  baptism  of  infants,  says,  "  Which  the  whole  body  of 
the  Church  holds,  as  delivered  to  them,  in  the  case  of  little 
infants  baptized, — and  yet  no  Christian  man  will  say  they 
are  baptized  to  no  purpose. "J 

Augustine  again  : — "  The  custom  of  our  mother 
church  in  baptizing  infants  must  not  be  disregarded  nor 
accounted  needless,  nor  believed  to  be  anything  else  than 
an  ordinance  delivered  to  us  from  the  apostles. "§ 

Again  he  declares  that  he  "  never  met  with  any  Chris- 
tian, either  of  the  general  Church  or  of  any  of  the  sects, 
nor  with  any  writer  who  owned  the  authority  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, who  taught  an}^  other  doctrine  than  that  infants  are 
to  be  baptized  for  the  remission  of  sin."  He  declares 
that  it  was  not  instituted  by  councils,  but  was  always  in 
use.\\ 

Now,  in  opposition  to  the  testimony  of  these  witnesses, 
we  have  the  Tract, — "  The  Scripture   Guide  to  Bap- 

*  Gray,  p.  64.  t  Ibid.  J  Dr.  Miller,  pp.  36,  37. 

§  Miller  orx  Baptism,  p.  37.  ||  Ibid. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  175 

TisM,''  published  by  *^  The  General  Baptist  Tract 
Society  :"  and  this  Tract  says,  "  Our  principles  are  as 
old  as  Christianity.  Persons  holdino-  our  distinctiv^e 
principles,  i.  e.  the  baptism  of  believers  07j/y,  have  ap- 
peared in  all  ages  of  the  Christian  era.  From  Christ  to 
nearly  the  end.of  the  2d  century,  there  were  no  others" 
(the  word  "  no  others"  in  capitals)  ;  "  at  least,  if  there 
were  any,  their  history  is  a  blank.  After  Infant  Baptism 
was  introduced,  many  opposed  it."  So  says  this  tract 
by  Pengilly.  Round  assertion  !  But  on  what  proof  1 
Not  a  scrap  is  offered  ;  and  that  for  the  best  of  all  rea- 
sons, there  is  no  such  evidence  in  the  world.  It  has 
been  sought ;  most  ardently  has  it  been  longed  for  ;  but 
there  is  none  :  no — none  even  to  hang  a  pretence  upon. 
It  is  asserted  that  none  practised  Infant  Baptism  till  near 
the  end  of  the  second  century  :  but  do  they  pretend  to  tell 
how  it  was  introduced  then  ;  and  that  so  quietly  as  to  be 
everywhere  received  in  Europe  and  Asia,  and  all  along 
the  coast  of  Africa,  and  throughout  the  Christian  world  ; 
and  nobody  know  but  that  they  had  always  practised  it 
from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  !  No — not  one  poor  lisp ; 
— not  a  syllable  to  show  how  or  when  it  was  introduced  ! 
It  is  asse?/cc?,  that  '•^whenii  was  introduced  many  did 
not  receive  it,  and  many  opposed  it."  Who  did  not 
receive  it  ^  The  Fathers  declare  they  never  heard  of 
such  a  man  ;  nor  do  our  Baptist  brethren  attempt  to  say 
who.  Who  opposed  it  1  Echo  answers,  Who  ?  Our 
Baptist  brethren  do  not  attempt  to  tell  who.  But  the 
*'  General  Tract  Society"  of  the  denomination  send  out 
this  Tract  to  assert  in  round  terms  that  "  to  nearly  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  there  were  no  others"  than  Bap- 


176  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

tists  on  the  question  of  baptizing  infants,  and,  that  ^'  after 
Infant  Baptism  was  introduced,  many  opposed  it  !" 

But  let  us  go  on  with  the  testimony.  Pelagius 
denied  the  doctrine  of  original  sin,  and  was  pressed  with 
the  absurdity  of  Infant  Baptism  on  his  principles.  Could 
he  have  denied  Infant  Baptism,. or  shown  it  to  be  a  cor- 
ruptiouj  it  v/ould  have  relieved  him  from  his  difficulties 
and  given  him  a  signal  triumph.  He  was  a  man  of  great 
abilities  and  great  learning,  and  had  travelled  the  Christian 
world  over.  He  and  his  coadjutor,  Celestius,  used  every 
means  to  relieve  themselves  from  the  pressure  of  the 
question, "  Why  are  infants  baptized  for  the  remission  of 
sins,  if  they  have  none  ?"  With  this  argument,  says 
Dr.  Pond,*  *'  Pelagius  and  his  abettors  were  much  em- 
barrassed, and  had  recourse  to  a  variety  of  evasions  in 
order  to  escape  from  it."  But  they  never  denied  infant 
baptism.  They  never  pretended  that  it  was  a  corruption 
or  innovation.  On  the  contrary,  Pelagius  says,  ^'  Bap- 
tism ought  to  be  administered  to  infants  with  the  same 
sacramental  words_ which  are  used  in  the  case  of  adults." 
"  Men  slander  me,"  said  he,  "  as  if  I  denied  the  sacra- 
ment of  baptism  to  infants  ;"  and  again,  "  1  never  heard 
OF   ANY,  not  even  the  most  impious  heretic,  who    denied 

BAPTISM  TO  INFANTS. "f 

It  is  easy  to  see,  from  these  extracts,  that  the  Christian 
Church  early  slid  away  from  purity  in  doctrine,  and  that 
many  of  the  old  Fathers  were  not  very  sound  theologians. 
I  adduce  them  not  to  prove  a  point  in  theology  by  their 
opinion  ,  I  adduce  them,  not  to  build  Infant  Baptism  on 
their  authority  ;  I  adduce  them  as  witnesses  to  a  matter  of 
fact : — that  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  Infant  Baptism 

*  Dr.  Pond  on  Baptism,  p.  107.    f  Dr.  Pond  on  Baptism,  p.  108, 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  177 

was  everywhere  practised,  and  understood  to  have  been 
received  from  the  Apostles,  with  no  man  anywhere  to  iisp 
a  breath  in  favor  of  a  contrary  supposition ;  but  with  the 
unbroken  and  uniform  belief  that  its  authority  rested  on  a 
foundation  none  other  than  the  practice  of  apostles  who 
were  inspired  of  God. 

If  it  had  ever  been  a  corrupt  innovation,  would  there 
not  have  been  somewhere  some  controversy  about  it  % 
Would  all,  everywhere,  have  so  unanimously  agreed 
to  receive  it  1  Would  every  tr-^ce  of  such  inno 'a- 
tion  or  such  controversy  have  perished  from  history  :  so 
that  men  living  near  the  apostolic  age,  though  under 
the  strongest  inducement  to  seek  out  such  history,  had  it 
existed,  could  never  be  able  to  find  the  least  trace  or 
fragment  of  it,  or  even  to  suspect  its  existence  !  Could 
these  things  be  so  1  Can  you  believe  them  to  be  so  1 
Can  you  stretch  your  credulity  to  that  point  with  ever 
so  great  an  effort  1  But  unless  what  is  so  improbable 
and  incredible  be  certainly  true,  then  Infant  Baptism 
was  practised  by  the  Apostles,  and  rests  for  its  authority 
upon  the  authority  of  God.  Now  we  know  how  to  in- 
terpret the  command,  "  Go  and  teach  (disciple)  all  na- 
tions, bapfizing  them  ;"— it  means,  '^  Baptize  believers 
and  their  infant  children.  It  means,  to  observe  the  or- 
der of  the  ancient  covenant :  which  made  God  the  God 
of  believers  and  of  their  seed  after  them.  A  flood  of 
light  is  thrown  upon  the  interpretation  of  such  passages 
as  represent  Christ  as  taking  little  children  in  his  a^ros, 
and  saying,  "  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  It 
corroborates  our  understanding  of  those  narratives  w^hich 
speak  of  the  baptism  of  households.  It  corroborates  the 
natural  interpretation  of  trit  passage  which  says,  *'  The 
8* 


178  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife,  and  the 
unbelieving  wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband,  else  were 
your  children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."  One 
by  one,  we  have  taken  up  these  stones  fitted  by  the 
chisel.  They  match  together.  We  build  on.  They 
grow  into  an  arch,  as  if  formed  by  the  Great  Master 
Builder  with  that  design.  Not  a  stone  is  wanting.  The 
keystone  is  driven.  Each  stone  lends  its  aid  to 
strengthen  the  whole.  The  work  ts  complete.  It  stands  ; 
it  will  stand  eternally  ;  and  round  its  circling  brow  is 
graven  as  in  letters  sunk  deep  in  the  enduring  rock,  and 
illumined  by   the  rays   of  heaven  :— "  The  baptism  of 

THE  INFANT  CHILDKEN  OF  BELIEVING  PARENTS,  RESTS  FOK 
ITS  FOUNDATION  UPON  NO  LESS  A  BASIS  THAN  THE  AUTHOR- 
ITY OF  Goj>." 


V. 

INFANT  BAPTISM. 

OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED  I    ITS  UTILITY  VINDICATED. 


ROMANS  III.  1—3, 

What  advantage,  then,  hath  the  Jew  1  or  what  profit  is  there  of 
circumcision  ?  3Iuch  every  way  :  chiefly  because  that  unto 
them  were  committed  the  oracles  of  God.  For  what  if  some  did 
not  believe  1  shall  their  unbelief  make  the  faith  of  God  without 
effect  ? 


The  authority  of  Infant  Baptism  we  have  already  con- 
sidered. I  shall  now  proceed  to  answer  some  objections 
which  have  been  urged  against  the  practice,  and  to 
vindicate  its  utility. 

Before  I  proceed  to  these  points,  however,  I  desire  to 
say  a  little  more  with  regard  to  the  History  of  Infant 
Baptism.  I  proved,  I  trust  to  your  satisfaction,  that  In- 
fant Baptism  was  practised  from  the  times  of  the  Apostles, 
with  not  a  man  to  lift  up  his  voice  against  the  Divine 
authority  of  the  practice,  for  the  first  four  hundred  years 
after  Christ. 

But  our  Baptist  brethren  claim  that  the  Waldenses 
maintained  their  views  and  rejected  Infant  Baptism. 

Now,  granting  that  they  did,  we   cannot  trace  the 


180  LAW   OF   BAPTISM. 

Waldenses  up  to  the  period  of  four  hundred  years  after 
Christ,  and  their  testimony  cannot  at  all  affect  the  matters 
already  in  proof. 

But  the  Waldenses  are  venerable  witnesses ;  and 
though  no  testimony  of  theirs  can  affect  the  truth  whicVi 
we  have  already  proved,  and  which  rests  upon  ground 
to  which  their  testimony  does  not  reach ;  still  we  are 
willing  and  desirous  to  hear  what  these  venerable  wit- 
nesses, the  Waldenses,  say. 

And  here  I  quote  from  Dr.  Miller.*  He  says,  "  It  is 
worthy  of  particular  notice  that  those  far-famed  witnesses 
for  the  truth,  the  Waldenses,  did  undoubtedlij  hold  the 
doctrine  of  Infant  Baptism^  and  practise  accordingly,'''' 

What  proof  does  Dr  Miller  bring  for  this  assertion  ? 
The  best  possible  proof:  their  own  "confessions  of 
faith,"  and  other  of  their  writings  drawn  up  between  the 
12th  century  and  the  period  of  the  Reformation.  "  In 
which,"  says  Dr.  Miller,  "  they  represent  their  creeds 
and  usages  as  handed  down  from  father  to  son,  for  several 
hundred  years  before  the  Reformat'ion.'''' 

"  And  for  this  cause,"  say  the  Waldenses,  "  it  is,  that 
we  present  our  children  in  baptism,  which  ought  to  be 
done  by  those  to  whom  the  children  are  most  nearly  re- 
lated, such  as  parents,"  &c.  Again,  "  The  things  which 
are  not  necessary  in  baptism  are  exorcisms,  the  breath- 
ings— the  sign  of  the  cross  upon  the  head  or  forehead  of 
THE  INFANT — the  Salt  put  into  the  mouth,  the  spittle  into 
the  ears  and  nostrils,"  &c. 

Understanding  that  their  Popish  neighbors  charged 
them  with  denying  the  baptism  of  infants,  they  acquit 

*  On  Baptism,  pp.  33  and  40. 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  181 

themselves  thus  :    "  yet  notwithstanding,  we  bring  out 
children  to  be  baptized.'^''* 

I  now  proceed  to  answer  objections  ;  and  to  vindi  - 

CATE  THE  UTILITY  OF  InFANT  BaPTISM 

It  is  asked,  "  What  good  can  it  do  to  sprinkle  an  un- 
conscious babe  ?" 

If  this  be  asked  with  regard  to  the  effect  of  the  bare 

*  Dr.  Murdoch  (Notes  on  Mosheim,  Vol.  iii.  p.,  228,  229)  says, 
"It  IS  a  well-known  historic  fact,  that  in  the  16th  century,  the 
genuine  descendants  of  the  old  Waldensians,  Wickliffites,  and 
Hussites,  who  were  numerous  in  France,  England,  &c.,  readily 
united  with  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  communities,  and  at 
length  became  absorbed  in  them;  and  that  very  few,  if  any  of 
them,  ever  manifested  a  preference  for  the  Mennonite  or  for  any 
OF  THE  Anti-p^do-baptist  sects  of  that  age." — "  And  if  we 
endeavor  to  trace  the  history  of  that  grand  peculiarity  of  all  Men- 
nonites,  their  confining  baptism  to  adult  believers,  and  rejecting 
Infant  Baptism  altogether,  we  shall  find,  that  at  the  time  Menno 
first  embraced  it,  it  existed  among  the  numerous  German  Ana- 
baptists, but  NOT  AMONG  THE  Waldenses  of  Fraucc  or  Bohe- 
mia, loho  tvere  then  univef.sally  believers  in  Infant  Bap- 
tism." "  These  Waldensian  Paedo-baptists,  moreover,  declared 
that  they  held  the  same  belief  which  their  fathers  had  maintained 
for  several  centuries  ;  and  they  appealed  to  their  old  books,  to 
make  good  their  assertions."  "  There  were,  indeed,  various 
mystical  sects,  tinctured  more  or  less  with  Manichean  views,  in 
the  12th  and  following  centuries,  who  rejected  all  water  baptism, 
on  much  the  same  ground  as  the  Quakers  still  do,  and  sotne  of 
them  assailed  Infant  Baptism  especially,  as  being  peculiarly  unsuit- 
able and  absurd."  There  is  also  pretty  good  evidence  that  early 
in  the  12th  centuiy,  Peter  Bruis,  and  his  successor  Henry,  with 
their  followers,  the  Pctrobrussians  and  Hcnricans,  did  at  first  reject 
Infant  Baptism,  &c.  "  But  soon  after,  Peter  Waldo  arose,  and  gave 
birth  to  the  proper  "Waldensians ;  and  we  hear  no  more  of  the 
Pctrobrussians  and  Henricans.  They  probably  gave  up  their 
opposition  to  Infant  Baptism." 


182  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

act  of  sprinkling,  I  answer,  no  good.  Nor  does  the  bare 
act  of  baptizing  an  adult  do  any  good,  through  any  virtue 
in  the  act ;  sprinkle — pour — plunge — ivash — scour — do 
what  you  will.  The  bare  act  has  no  virtue  in  it ;  and 
the  bare  water  does  no  good,  whatever  be  the  mode  of 
applying  it ;  and  no  matter  whether  the  subject  of  it  be 
conscious  or  unconscious. 

But  if  God  has  commanded  it,  as  a  token — as  a  seal  of 
his  covenant — as  a  means  of  keeping  parents  and  chil- 
dren and  the  world  in  mind  of  the  great  truth  that  the 
sins  need  to  be  washed  away  by  *'  the  sprinkling  of  the 
blood  of  Christ ;"  and  that  the  polluted  soul,  even  of  the 
infant,  needs  the  "  washing  of  regeneration  and  the  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost ;"  if  God  sees  fit  to  appoint  it 
as  a  sign  of  his  covenant,  as  he  appointed  the  bow  in  the 
cloud  for  the  encouragement  of  men  in  another  respect ; 
if  he  sees  fit  to  appoint  it  for  its  salutary  influence  upon 
the  parent's  heart,  to  encourage  his  prayers  and  his  ef- 
forts for  the  spiritual  good  of  his  child ;  or  if  he  sees  fit 
to  appoint  it  as  an  encouragement  to  piety  by  putting 
honor  upon  the  piety  of  parents  ; — or  if  to  make  his 
claim  to  the  soul  of  that  child,  and,  by  affixing  his  seal, 
to  challenge  of  him  who  has  received  it,  love  and  duty 
through  all  the  remainder  of  his  life  ; — or  for  whatever 
unknown  and  secret  reason  other  than  these,  God  has  seen 
fit  to  appoint  the  sign  ;  then  it  does  good  to  obey  God, 
even  if  there  is  no  good  done  by  the  bare  act  of  baptizing 
an  unconscious  babe.  Doubtless  there  are  wise  and  im- 
portant reasons.  Some  important  uses  we  can  see  and 
feel ;  and  though  the  baptism  be  not  on  the  infant's  faith, 
yet  how  often  did  the  Saviour  grant  healing  to  diseased 
children,  on  account  of  the  faith  and  importunity  of  the 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  183 

parents  J  as  in  the  case  of  the  Syrophenician  woman,  and 
of  the  Centurion,  whose  faith  brought  healing  even  to  his 
afflicted  servant  1 

The  inquiry,  then,  "  What  good  can  it  do  to  the  un- 
conscious babe,"  in  the  first  place,  proceeds  upon  a 
ground  which  none  of  us,  not  even  the  objector,  holds 
otherwise  than  as  idle  and  false  ;  viz.,  that  the  bare  act 
of  baptizing,  of  itself,  does  good  to  anybody.  In  the 
second  place,  it  is  an  appeal  not  lo  piety,  but  to  infide- 
lity. In  the  third  place,  it  proposes  to  men  to  inquire 
concerning  what  they  hold  as  an  ordinance  of  Jehovah, 
"  What  good  can  it  do  1"  And  if  the  question  could 
carry  its  aim,  and  establish  its  principle,  it  would  lead 
men  to  reject  whatever  commands  of  God,  the  reasons 
of  which  are  not  plain  to  their  understanding.  On  this 
ground  Abraham  would  never  have  left  his  father's 
house :  he  would  never  have  proceeded  to  offer  up  his  son 
for  a  burnt  offering. 

Surely,  we  shall  not  be  driven  from  faith  and  duty  by 
this  illogical  and  infidel  objection,  how  often  soever 
our  brethren  may  see  fit  to  sound  it  in  our  ears  !  Sure- 
ly, it  is  not  good  to  disobey  God  under  the  notion  that 
he  has  required  what  can  do  no  good  !  How  easy  would 
it  have  been  to  ask  the  same  question  with  regard  to 
circumcising  infants  1  How  easy  to  pour  out  a  torrent  of 
ribaldry  upon  "  such^^  an  ordinance  as  '^  doing  good"  to 
an  unconscious  babe  !  How  many  worse  things  might 
have  been  said  of  it  than  are  said  of  the  ordinance  which 
we  sometimes  hear  ridiculed  under  the  name  of  "  baby 
sprinkling  !"  Should  the  Patriarchs  and  their  posterity 
therefore  set  it  aside,  and  suffer  themselves  to  be  jeered 
out  of  God's  covenant  promises  for  their  children  1 


184  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

But  again  it  is  asked,  "  Do  you  believe  that  infants  are 
lost  if  they  die  unbaptized  V  No,  no,  no  !  We  believe  no 
such  thing  :  we  fear  no  such  thing.  But  shall  we  take 
it  for  granted  that  our  infants  are  to  die  in  infancy,  and 
therefore  disobey  God,  and  exhibit  our  contempt  for  his, 
covenant  ?  If,  peradventure,  they  should  /iue,  can  we  be 
sure  that  no  effects  of  our  disobedience  and  unbelief  may 
come  down  upon  them,  either  by  the  natural  influence 
of  that  unbelief,  or  by  the  special  displeasure  of  God 
upon  those  who  break  his  covenant  ?  Or  if  we  may  be 
sure  of  this,  is  it  certainly  best  to  disobey  God  ? 

But  again,  it  is  asked,  "  Do  you  think  baptism  a  rege- 
nerating and  saving  ordinance  ?  Do  you  think  it  sure  that 
the  children  whom  you  baptize  will  ever  be  converted  and 
saved;  at  least  in  consequence  of  the  baptism  ?  And  if  not  ^  to 
ivhat  profit  is  the  baptism^  if  it  neither  converts  nor  ensures 
future  conversion  ;  and  if 'multitudes  who  are  baptized  are 
never  converted  or  saved  ?" 

If  we  could  not  answer  particularly  to  these  inquiries, 
it  would  still  be  enousch  to  be  able  to  o-ive  this  answer : 
'^  God  has  so  instructed  us  :^''  and  it  would  be  quite  as 
good  an  answer  as  Abraham  could  have  given  when  he 
was  about  to  do  a  greater  thing,  and  when  much  harder 
questions  might  have  been  asked  concerning  the  propri- 
ety of  the  act  j  to  wit,  when  Abraham  was  about  to 
offer  up  his  son  Isaac,  as  a  burnt  offering. 

But  Paul  shall  answer  these  inquiries  in  detail.  Ob- 
jectors argued  of  old  as  objectors  argue  now  ;  and  while 
they  meant  no  such  thing,  they  have  caused  the  Bible 
to  be  made  all  the  richer  ;  just  as  all  errors  and  heresies, 
and  all  the  objections  of  infidels,  subsequent  to  the  age 
of  revelation,  have  only  served  to   bring   out  the  truth 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


185 


more  clear  and  glorious  than  it  ever  would  have  appear- 
ed in  the  eyes  of  the  world.  Who  knows  but  these  ob- 
jections were  made,  and  answered,  and  recorded,  to  meet 
just  such  emergencies  as  these  ?  Wlio  knows  but  that 
God  designs,  through  the  spirited  and  persevering  efforts 
by  which  our  Baptist  brethren  shake  the  minds  of  some, 
and  overthrow  the  faith  of  others,  to  establish  his  truth 
and  his  ordinances  the  more  firmly,  and  to  let  his  Church 
see  more  clearly  than  they  ever  would  have  seen,  the 
Divine  warrant,  and  t;ie  large  benefits  of  his  covenant, 
and  of  the  application  of  its  seal  to  their  infant  children  % 
The  objection  is,  "  That  the  ordinance  does  neither 
convert,  nor  ensure  conversion  :  that  many  who  receive  it 
are  never  converted  in  their  lives  :  and  that  it  seems  useless, 
if  not  a  mockery,  to  apply  a  seal  significant  of  inward 
cleansing,  and  implying  a  covenant  of  spiritual  blessings  to 
those  who  hxive  not,  and  may  never  have  the  reality.'^'' 

I  think  I  have  stated  the  objection  as  fully  and  as 
strongly  as  any  can  desire. 

Paul  shall  answer  it,  and  turn  the  tables  upon  the  ob- 
jector, by  more  thoroughly  establishing  the  point  than  if 
it  had  never  been  questioned. 

In  Rom.  il.,  he  has  been  showing  the  Jew,  that  neither 
the  law,  nor  the  covenant,  nor  its  seal,  nor  its  promises, 
can  save  him,  without  his  own  personal  faith  ;  and  by 
that  same  faith,  the  Gentile  may  be  saved  as  well  as  the 
Jew.  Nay,  more,  all  the  seals  and  privileges  are  null  to 
the  Jew,  if  he  be  a  *'  breaker  of  the  law  ;"  and  if  the  Gen- 
tile keep  the  law,  it  shall  be  with  him  as  though  he  had 
been  circumcised.  Thus,  verses  25,  26,  '*  But  if  thou 
be  a  breaker  of  the  law,  thy  circumcision  is  made  uncir- 
cumcision  ;    therefore,  if  the  unclrcumcision  keep  the 


186  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

righteousness  of  the  law,  shall  not  his  uncircunacision  be 
counted  for  circumcision  :" — and  verses  28, 29,  "  For  he 
is  not  a  Jew  (i.  e.,  a  child  of  God),  which  is  one  out- 
wardly :  neither  is  that  circumcision  which  is  outward  in 
the  flesh  ;  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly  ;  and 
circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit  and  not  in 
the  letter,  whose  praise  is  not  of  men  but  of  God." 

Here,  the  conditions  are  as  are  supposed  in  the  objec- 
tion against  Infant  Baptism.  Those  with  the  seal  shall 
not  be  saved  without  their  own  personal  qualifications  ; 
and  those  without  the  seal  shall  be  saved  with  those  qualifi- 
cations. It  is  one  God  who  shall  justify  the  circumcision 
by  faith,  and  the  uncircumcision  through  faith.  More- 
over, the  seal  is  applied  to  those  who  are  not  converted 
by  it ;  and  many  of  them  are  not  converted  at  all. 
Moreover,  the  seal  is  one  significant  of  inward  cleansing, 
"  in  the  heart  and  in  the  spirit :"  and  so  connected  with 
a  covenant  which  has  salvation  for  its  end. 

The  conditions  are  precisely  the  same  as  those  supposed 
in  the  objections  against  Infant  Baptism.  Why  apply  a 
seal  of  such  a  signification,  and  of  such  a  covenant,  to 
them  who  are  not  inwardly  cleansed  by  it,  and  who  may 
never  be  converted  at  all  1  Is  it  not  mockery  ?  At  least 
is  it  not  useless  % 

Paul  had  either  heard  the  objection  made,  or  his  natu- 
ral forecast  taught  him  it  would  be  made  ;  or  rather — 
the  Holy  Ghost,  to  answer  all  such  objections  then  and 
for  ever,  caused  the  objection  to  be  started  in  the  form 
of  this  inquiry,  Rom.  iii.  1-3,  "  What  advantage^  then, 
hath  the  Jew  1  Or  what  profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ? 
(viz.  if  the^  circumcision  does  not  convert  him,  nor  en- 
sure that  he  shall  be  converted :  and  if  the  circumcised 


INFANT    BAPT.&M.  187 

person  cannot  be  saved  on  other  conditions  than  the  un- 
circunicised  1)  "  Much  every  way,^''  answers  the  Apostle. 
Chiefly  because  that  unto  them  were  committed  the  oracles 
of  God.  For  what  if  some  did  not  believe  ?  (It  was  with 
the  circumcised  as  with  the  baptized,  some  did  not  be- 
lieve ;  and  the  unbelievers  were  lost  as  much  as  though 
they  had  been  uncircumcised  :  just  as  unbelievers  will 
he  lost,  though  they  may  have  been  baptized.)  "  For 
what  if  some  did  not  believe  ?  shall  their  vnbeliff  make 
the  faith  of  God  of  none  effect  ?  God  forbid  ;  yea,  let  God 
be  true,  but  every  man  a  liar.'''^ 

The  unbelief  of  some,  then,  is  no  objection  against  the 
covenant  of  God,  or  against  his  faithfulness  to  that  cove- 
nant :  and  notwithstanding  the  objection,  there  is  every 
way  MUCH  profit  of  circumcision.  It  was  still  the  seal  of 
God's  covenant.  A  score  of  centuries  after  Jehovah's 
promise  to  be  the  God  of  Abraham  and  his  seed,  the 
seed  of  Abraham  "  as  touching  the  election,"  were  "  be- 
loved for  the  fathers' SAKE."    "And  because  he  loved  thy 

FATHERS,  he  chose  THEIR  SEED  AFTER  THEM  :"  and,  Dcut. 

vii.,  "  Know,  therefore,  that  the  Lord  thy  God  he  is 
God,  the  faithful  God,  which  keepeth  covenant  and 
mercy  with  them  that  love  him  and  keep  his  command- 
ments, to  a  thousand  generations.'^'' 

The  blessings  of  this  covenant,  it  was  foretold,  should 
come  upon  the  Gentiles.  Abraham  was  to  be  the  "  fa- 
ther of  many  nations.''''  The  promise  was  to  be  "  sure  to 
all  the  seed,  not  only  to  that  ivhich  is  of  the  law^  but  to 
that  which  is  of  faiths  Nay,  the  prophets  who  foretold 
the  glory  of  Christ's  kingdom,  when  they  spake  in  the 
most  glowing  strains,  made  mention  of  this  same  arrange- 
ment under  the  dispensation  of  Christ.     Thus,  Isa.  Ixv 


188  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

17,  and  onward  ;  "  For  behold  I  create  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth  :  and  the  former  shall  not  be  remember- 
ed, nor  come  into  mind.  But  be  ye  glad,  and  rejoice  fof 
ever  in  that  which  I  create :  for  behold  I  create  Jerusa- 
lem a  rejoicing  and  her  people  a  joy." — "  They  shall 
not  labor  in  vain,  nor  bring  forth  for  trouble, /or  they  are 
the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord,  and  their  offspring 

WITH    THF"\*' 

Well  might  the  Apostle  Peter  cry  out,  "  For  the  'pro- 
mise is  to  you,  AND  TO  YOUR  CHILDREN,  and  to  all  that  are 
afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call." 
Well  might  Paul  declare,  "  And  if  ye  are  Christ's,  then 
are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  pro- 
mise.'''' 

God  appears  to  have  designed  to  make  a  large  use  of 
the  family  influence  in  establishing  and  perpetuating  the 
Gospel  of  salvation  :  in  keeping,  alive  on  the  earth  Gospel 
truth  and  Gospel  ordinances.  For  this  reason  he  ordain- 
ed that  the  marriage  relation  should  be  limited  to  one  hus- 
band and  one  wife.  Thus,  Mai.  ii.  14,  15,  "  Yet  is  she  thy 
companion  and  the  wnfe  of  thy  covenant.  And  did  He 
not  make  one  ?  Yet  had  He  the  residue  of  the  Spirit 
And  wherefore  one  ?  That  he  might  seek  a  godly 
SEED."  For  the  same  end  he  established  his  covenant 
in  tlie  household  of  Abraham.  "  For  I  know  him," 
said  the  Lord,  "  that  he  will  command  his  children  and 
his  household  after  him  ;  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of 
the  Lord,  r  do  justice  and  judgment ;  that  the  Lord  may 
bring  upon  Abraham  that  ichich  he  hath  spoken  of  hi?n. 
On  the  same  principle  it  is  said,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  5-7,  "For 
He  established  a  testimony  in  Jacob,  and  appoint -d  a  law 
in  Israel,  which  he  commanded   our   fathers   that   they 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  189 

should  make  them  known  to  their  children  ;  that  the 
generation  to  come  might  know  them,  even  the  children 
which  should  be  born  ;  who  should  arise  and  teach  them 
to  their  children  :  that  they  might  set  their  hope  in  God, 
and  not  forget  the  works  of  God,  but  keep  his  command- 
ments.'' 

God  was  pleased  to  ordain  that  his  blessing  and  the 
fruits  of  pious  labor  and  of  prayer  should  go  together : 
and  he  gradoushj  established  and  sealed  this  ordinance  by 
covenant.  The  reason  for  the  covenant  and  the  seal  re- 
maining, they  remain.  They  remain  enlarged  and  rati- 
fied in  Christ  to  the  end  of  time.  Shall  we  be  told  that 
it  does  no  good  to  remember  this  covenant  ? — no  good, 
as  we  look  on  the  sea/,  to  let  the  promise  of  ths  covenant 
encourage  our  hearts,  and  quicken  our  prayers  1  Has 
the  Lord  mistaken  his  appointment,  arid  given  an  un- 
necessary covenant  and  a  useless  seal  ?  Shall  we  con- 
clude so  1     Shall  we  so  requite  the  Lord  ? 

We  cannot :  for  when  we  look  we  find  that  in  the 
line  of  the  seed  of  the  promise  (that  of  Gentile  believers 
as  well  as  that  of  the  law), — in  this  line  of  the  promised 
seed,  have  been  found  from  age  to  age  the  mass  of  those 
who  have  been  saved.  God  bestows  his  grace  where 
he  has  given  his  covenant ;  where  he  has  deposited  his 
word  ;  where  his  ordinances  are  observed  ;  and  where 
the  voice  of  prayer  and  of  faith  ascends.  Pagan  lands 
bear  not  the  fruits  of  Christendom.  Those  places  in 
Christendom,  where  the  oracles  of  God,  the  preaching 
of  the  word,  and  the  ordinances  are  not,  are  not  visited 
with  showers  of  grace  and  blessed  with  a  godly  seed, 
like  those  places  where  the  ordinances  and  the  word  are 
enjoyed.     The  fathers  of  an  ungodly  community  hand 


190  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

down  ungodliness  and  perdition  to  their  children  ;  and 
often  upon  their  children's  children  to  the  fourth  gene- 
ration are  the  iniquities  of  the  fathers  visited  ;  no  less  by 
the  laws  of  nature,  than  by  the  providence,  and  accord- 
ing to  the  word  of  God.  The  true  worshippers  of  God 
bequeath  their  sanctuaries,  their  Sabbaths,  and  their  Di- 
vine ordinances,  to  their  posterity  ;  who  have  been  im- 
bued with  the  principles  of  Divine  truth,  and  trained  up 
in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord.  There  the 
grace  of  God  showers  down  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  From  these  are  taken  those  who  are  to  be  the 
sons  and  daughters  of  the  Lord  Almighty. 

Shall  we  be  told  that  all  this  is  natural^  and  pertains  not 
to  the  provision  of  the  covenant  .^  Who  made  it  natu- 
ral 1  Do  not  the  arrangements  which  God  has  made 
in  the  natural  world  show  as  well  as  any  other,  what  is 
his  pleasure  ?  And  do  not  they  show  us  here  that  it  is 
his  pleasure  to  be  the  God  of  believers  and  of  their 
SEED  AFTER  THEM  ?  Shall  it  be  thought  wonderful  that 
he  has  ratified  by  covenant  what  he  has  appointed  in  na- 
ture %  And  if  the  covenant  were  to  pass  away,  would 
not  the  great  truth  still  remain  true  in  nature,  that  God 
is  pleased  to  be  the  God  of  believers,  and  of  their  seed 
after  them  1 

But,  is  it  all  natural  ?  Is  there  no  grace,  in  determin- 
injr  who  shall  be  the  heirs  of  salvation  1  Shall  we  be  told 
that  the  covenant  is  nothing,  because  God  has  arranged 
powerful  means  to  secure  the  fulfilment  of  its  promises  ? 
Surelj""  none  can  make  this  objection,  who  do  not  at  the 
same  time  forget,  that  the  grace  of  God  which  brings 
renewing  and  salvation  to  an  individual  soul,  is  quite 
beyond  the  effect  of  the  most  powerful  means,  and  de- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  191 

pends  upon  th  i  sovereign  act  of  a  sovereign  God.  In  giv- 
ing his  Spirit,  he  is  sovereign  ;  and  his  sovereignty  works 
in  such  a  way  as  to  fulfil  the  promise  of  his  covenant. 

Eut  when  we  look  at  this  point  more  fully,  the  light 
breaks  upon  us  in  increasing  splendor.  An  attentioa  to 
facts  shows  that  God  does  remember  his  covenant,  and 
put  honor  upon  its  seal.  From  the  published  and  offi- 
cial returns  of  the  Congregational  Churches  of  Connecticut 
to  the  General  Association  in  1834,  it  appears  that  two- 
thirds  of  all  that  were  received  to  these  Churches  on  pro- 
fession of  faith,  the  preceding  year,  had  been  baptized  in 
infancy.  Struck  with  this  fact,  I  was  curious  to  add  up 
the  results  for  several  years,  and  found  them  very  near- 
ly the  same.  The  results  of  an  examination  ot  like 
reports  of  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  and  of  the 
General  Association  of  New  York,  were  not  essentially 
different.  About  two-thirds  of  all  those  received  to  our 
Pa^do-Baptist  Churches  on  confession  of  faith,  are  such  as 
were  baptized  in  their  infancy.  But  taking  the  whole 
field,  the  baptized  children  constitute,  probably,  not 
more  than  one-third  of  the  children  attached  to  the  con- 
gregations of  these  Churches,  or  falling  properly  to  no 
other  denomination.  The  state  of  the  case,  then,  is  this  ; 
out  of  one-third  of  a  given  population,  two  are  hopefully 
converted,  and  brought  into  the  Church,  where  there  is 
one  so  converted  out  of  the  remaining  two-ihirds  :  a  ratio 
of  four  to  one  !  What  will  this  amount  to  in  the  whole 
country  1  What  in  the  whole  world  ?  What  will  it 
amount  to,  if  you  trace  it  down  to  the  end  of  time  1  To 
a  "  multitude  which  is  as  the  sand  by  the  sea-shore,  in- 
numerable !''  But  in  the  Western  and  Southern  parts 
of  the  country,  the   difference  is   more    striking  than  in 


192  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

New  England ;  because  the  proportion  of  the  members 
of  the  Church  of  Christ  to  the  whole  population  is  far 
less.  And  these  results  are  witnessed,  when  so  much 
confident  denunciation  of  Infant  Baptism  has  led  so  many 
members  of  the  Church  to  neglect  it ;  and  led  so  many 
more  to  regard  it  as  a  mere  ritual,  rather  than  as  the 
valuable  seal  of  God's  covenant.  Oh,  what  might  have 
been  done,  had  parents  taken  hold  of  that  covenant  with 
unwavering  faith  ;  and,  pleading  the  covenant,  had  taken 
encouragement  from  its  promises,  and  from  God's  faith- 
fulness, to  be  more  earnest  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties 
which  that  covenant  implies  on  the  part  of  parents  ! 
Who  is  to  answer  for  all  this  loss  and  harm  ?  Who  is 
to  be  responsible  for  teaching  the  Church  of  God  to  neg- 
lect and  despise  both  the  covenant  and  its  seal  ? 

But  it  is  alleged  that  the  children  of  Baptist  families 
are  blessed  also.  We  are  glad  to  believe  it.  We 
praise  God  for  it.  This  proves  that  God  is  faithful  to 
his  covenant,  even  when  his  people  have  not  the  grace 
to  own  it,  and  give  God  thanks  for  it.  It  is  the  promise 
of  the  covenant  that  continues  to  them  a  godly  seed.  Is 
it  not  strange,  while  the  fruit  remains,  that  the  tree 
should  be  accounted  dead  %  But  are  they  sure  that 
the  blessing  follows  in  an  equal  degree  that  it  would, 
did  they  acknowledge  and  plead  the  covenant  ?  Are  all 
these  rich  promises,  these  numerous  and  ample  declara- 
tions, by  which  God  engages  to  be  the  God  of  his  peo- 
ple, and  of  their  seed  after  them,  so  poor  as  to  be  thrown 
lightly  away  ;  and  that  for  the  strange  reason  that  God 
has  arrano;ed  the  means  of  fulfillino;  them,  and  does  ac- 
tually  fulfil  them  1 

If  our  brethren  choose  to  reject  the  covenant  and  its 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  193 

seal,  will  they  not  at  least  allow  us  and  our  children  to 
enjoy  it  in  peace  ?  We  have  studied  the  matter  as  well 
as  they.  We  have  a  conscience  to  answer  as  well  as 
they.  We  have  the  Bible  in  our  hands,  and  we  know 
fully  all  the  objections  of  our  brethren.  May  we  never 
enjoy  in  peace  the  ordinances  which  we  truly  hold  dear, 
as  granted  us  and  enjoined  upon  us  by  the  oracles  of 
God  1  Are  we  never  to  have  done  hearing  it  ridiculed 
as  "Popery,"  "  superstition,"  and  "  mockery  .?"  Is  no 
respect  due  to  our  understanding  ? — none  to  our  regard 
for  the  truth  ? — none  to  our  religious  integrity,  and  to 
our  fear  of  God  1  And  yet,  what  we  are  often  compelled 
to  hear,  and  what  is  often  and  diligently  thrown  upon  the 
members  of  our  Churches  to  deter  them  from  this  holy 
ordinance,  take  the  following  from  "  The  New  York 
Baptist  Register''''  of  May  1st  as  a  specimen. 

"  If  a  parent  is  tempted  to  sprinkle  his  babe,  he  should 
remember,  1st,  That  he  has  no  right  to  take  advantage  of 
the  helpless  state  of  his  babe,  and  enslave  it  to  usurpers  ; 
2d,  He  has  no  right  to  countenance  a  mockery  of  Christ's 
ordinances  ;  3d,  He  has  no  right  to  dedicate  his  child  in 
connection  with  a  delusion  ;  it  will  make  him  feel  as  if 
the  matter  were  done  up  for  life  ;  4th,  He  has  no  right  to 
countenance  a  deluded  and  crazed  minister  solemnly  tel- 
ling a  falsehood,  however  honest  he  may  be  in  it,  by  say- 
ing, '  I  baptize  thee,'  when  he  does  no  such  thing  ;  and  by 
saying  he  does  it  in  the  name  of  the  Trinity,  when  it  is 
not  so  ;  5th,  There  are  so  many  false  principles  in  the 
transaction,  he  should  stop  and  consider  well ;  he  that 
doubteth  is  condemned  if  he  do  it.  There  is  every  rea- 
son to  believe  it  to  be  a  deception."* 

♦  See  the  New  York  Evangelist  of  May,  30,  1840. 

9 


194  LAW   OF   BAPTISINI. 

Fathers  and  mothers  in  the  Church  of  God  ;  Have  you 
ever  felt,  when  you  have  clauned  the  privileges  of  the 
covenant  for  your  children,  that  the  mere  application  of 
the  seal  changed  the  hearts  of  these  children  or  ensured 
that  it  would  ever  be  done  1  Have  you  ever  felt  that, 
having  done  this,  the  matter  was  "  done  up  for  life  ?" 
Were  you  so  instructed  in  your  childhood  1  Did  you 
ever  feel  so  1  Fathers  and  mothers  in  this  Church  of 
God  ;  ye  whose  memories  embrace  the  days  of  Benedict, 
Eaton,  Swan,  and  Burnet ;  have  you  ever  heard  such  a 
doctrine  taught  from  this  pulpit  ?  Has  anything  that 
could  countenance  such  a  notion  ever  fallen  upon  your 
ears  in  this  house  of  God  ?  I  look  around  and  see  many 
youths  from  whom  it  is  not  many  months  since  I  heard 
the  inquiry.  What  shall  we  do  to  be  saved  1  Dear  youths, 
did  it  ever  enter  into  your  minds,  that  because  you  had 
been  baptized,  the  business  was  done  up  for  life  ;  or  that 
you  were  relieved  at  all  from  the  necessity  of  being  born 
of  the  spirit;  of  repenting  and  turning  to  God,  if  you 
would  be  saved  1 

I  too  am  a  parent.  I  know  the  hallowed  and  deep 
impressions  of  a  parent  in  presenting  his  child  to  receive 
the  seal  of  God's  covenant  ;  I  know  how  strong  is  the 
impression  made  upon  a  parent's  soul,  that  his  offspring 
are  the  degenerate  plants  of  a  strange  vine  ;  fallen,  de- 
praved beings,  who  must  receive  the  inward  washing  of 
regeneration,  of  which  the  outward  baptism  is  but  the 
sign,  or  be  lost.  I  know  it  comforts  a  parent's  heart, 
as  he  looks  forward  to  the  future  life  of  that  child,  and 
forward  to  the  eternal  world  ;  to  be  able  to  claim  that 
blessed  promise,  "  I  will  be  thy  God,  and  the  God  of  thy 
seed  after  thee."     I  know  how  solemn  is  the  impression 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  195 

made  upon  the  parent's  heart,  of  the  covenant,  which,  in 
this  transaction,  he  takes  upon  his  soul,  to  train  up  his 
child  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord. 

It  is  vain  for  the  world  to  inquire  of  the  Christian, 
*^  What  is  the  use  of  taking  a  morsel  of  bread  and  a  lit- 
tle wine  at  the  communion  1  Is  there  any  benefit  in  a 
mere  ceremony  V  When  the  Christian  has  felt  the  pre- 
sence of  the  Saviour  at  his  table  ;  when  his  soul  has 
been  kindled  into  a  near  communion  with  Christ,  as  the 
sintple  emblems  of  his  Saviour's  body  and  blood  have  set 
forth  that  Saviour's  love,  and  sufferings,  and  faithfulness 
in  connection  with  the  tenderness  of  that  dying  charge — 
"  This  do  in  remembrance  of  me.''"'  O,  it  is  vain  then  for 
the  world  to  ask  him,  VVhat  profit'is  there  in  a  mere  cere- 
mony ?  So  with  the  parent  who  has  felt  the  influence 
of  that  solemn  act — the  baptism  of  his  child, — upon  his 
own  heart ;  and  when,  in  after  days,he/ee/5  how  it  en- 
courages his  faith,  and  deepens  his  sense  of  responsibi- 
lity. Vain  is  all  the  language  of  reproach  and  ridicule 
then.  Men  may  deride  this  faith,  as  well  as  reason 
against  it.  What  then  ^  Is  there  an  article  of  his  faith 
which  has  not  been  impugned  and  derided  ;  and  that  too 
by  men  bearing  the  Christian  name  %  The  divinity  of 
his  Saviour  is  denied  ;  the  atonement  is  denied  ;  the  re- 
newing of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  even  his  personal  exist- 
ence is  denied.  The  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  denied  ; 
and  now  even  the  personal  existence  of  the  Godhead  is 
denied  ;  and  all  these  things  by  men  who  call  themselves 
by  the  name  of  Christ !  If  he  is  to  yield  every  truth 
which  is  assailed,  and  abandon  every  point  that  is  vehe- 
mently impugned  and  ridiculed,  what  has  he  leftl    His 


196  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

faith,  his  hope,  his  consolation,  his  Redeemer,  his  Sanc- 
tifier,  his  God,  is  gone. 

"  Prove  all  things  :  hold  fast  that  which  is  good." 
This  ground  we  have  proved.  We  have  listened  to 
objections  ;  we  have  weighed  arguments.  These  have 
not  moved  us  ;  how  much  less  shall  railing  and  reproaches 
move  us  from  that  which  we  have  received  to  hold,  as 
nothing  less  than  an  ordinance  of  the  Most  High  God  1 

Let  us  believe.  Let  us  obey.  Let  us  not  only  be 
scrupulous  to  give  our  children  the  seal ;  but  to  teach 
them  afterwards  its  import ;  to  warn  them  how  they 
slight  its  obligation,  or  undervalue  its  privileges.  Let  us 
made  it  the  basis  of  our  plea  with  our  children,  that  they 
will  not  forsake  the  God  of  their  fathers.  Let  us  make 
it  the  ground  of  our  plea  with  God,  that  he  will  give  to 
our  children  the  blessings  of  the  covenant  which  are  impli- 
ed in  the  seal.  Let  us  ask  these  things  of  our  covenant 
keeping  and  faithful  God.  Let  our  souls  never  cease 
from  the  throes  of  earnest  desire,  till  Christ  be  formed  in 
our  children,  the  hope  of  glory.  Then,  when  households 
meet  around  the  throne  of  God,  may  the  parents  and  the 
children  rejoice  together  with  exceeding  joy  ;  and  to  the 
covenant  mercy  of  God  shall  redound  eternal  praise. 

Are  there  believing  parents  who  have  been  misled 
concerning  the  truth  ;  or  who,  through  the  want  of  a 
proper  understanding  of  the  ordinance ;  or  through  un- 
belief concerning  its  utility,  have  neglected  to  claim  its 
blessings,  and  to  affix  the  seal  of  the  covenant  upon  their 
children  ?  Have  they  now  seen  and  understood  the 
truth  1  Then  seize  the  privileges  of  the  covenant  and 
claim  the  seal  for  your  children,  if  it  yet  remains  within 
your  power ;  an  1  pray  God  not  to  visit  your  past  un- 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  197 

belief  or  negligence  upon  you  or  upon  your  offspring. 
Cast  not  away  the  privileges  of  that  gracious  covenant, 
which  the  Lord  has  deemed  worthy  of  Him  to  offer  to 
nis  children  as  a  precious  boon  from  their  Father  and 
their  God. 

Let  those  who  are  parents,  and  not  yet  savingly  in« 
terested  in  the  covenant  of  grace,  feel  for  their  children 
as  well  as  for  themselves.  Perhaps,  the  seal  of  the 
covenant  was  given  to  you.  ^'  Perhaps,  to  you  it  de- 
scended from  generation  to  generation,  through  an  un- 
broken line  of  pious  ancestry."  It  was  a  token  that 
God,  the  God  of  your  fathers,  was  ready  to  be  your  God 
and  the  God  of  your  children,  if  you  would  not  by  your 
own  unbelief  and  guilt  cast  away  the  blessings  of  the 
covenant.  Shall  the  line  be  broken  in  you  1  Think 
how  many  generations  of  the  descendants  of  them  who 
disowned  the  Messiah,  and  were  broken  off  and  rejected 
from  being  the  people  of  God,  have  wandered  away,  and 
stumbled  and  perished  on  the  dark  mountains.  Shall 
your  children,  and  perhaps  your  children's  children,  be 
thrown  aside  among  the  branches  that  are  broken  ofFI 
It  is  true,  that  no  one  of  them  w^ill  perish,  but  for  his  own 
sin.  But  how  many  a  child^  and  how  many  children's 
children  do  perish  through  the  occasion  and  influence  of 
an  unbelieving  and  wicked  father  %  I  need  only  refer 
you  to  the  influence  of  a  Sabbath-breaker,  an  infidel,  a 
scofler,  a  profane,  or  lewd,  or  unprincipled  man,  upon 
the  destinies  of  his  children  and  more  remote  descend- 
ants. Can  we  be  sure  that  there  may  be  nothing  like 
this  in  the  influence  of  him  who  is  the  occasion  of  break- 
ing away  from  the  covenant  and  its  seal ;  and  of  cuttino- 
his  posterity  off  from  privileges  and  means  of  grace  which 


198  LAW    OF    BAPTISM. 

the  piety  of  his  ancestors,  from  generation  to  generation, 
handed  down  to  him  1  Is  there  no  such  natural  tendency 
or  influence  in  the  example  of  his  unbelief? — none  in 
his  neglect  of  household  prayer  ? — none  in  the  separation 
of  him  and  all  his,  from  the  sacraments  of  the  Church 
of  God  ?  Remember  and  fear  that  solemn  admonition  of 
God  to  his  covenant  people  of  old — "  Because  thou  hast 
rejected  knowledge,  I  will  also  reject  thee, — seeing  thou 
hast  forgotten  the  law  of  thy  God,  I  xviU  also  forget  thy 
children.''''  The  branch  may  be  broken  off;  but  it  is  not 
for  man  to  tell  when  it  may  ever  please  God  to  graft 
it  in  again.  Oh  I  son — daughter — of  the  covenant ! 
what  consequences — aside  from  the  condemnation  and 
ruin  of  your  own  soul — may  arise  from  yourunbelief,  and 
descend  in  fruits  of  woe  to  generations  that'are  yet  unborn  ! 
Let  the  seal  of  the  covenant  which  was  impressed  upon 
you  with  the  tender  yearnings  of  parental  faith  remind  you 
of  the  blessings  that  you  cast  aw^ay  in  remaining  alienat- 
ed from  God.  Call  not  down  upon  your  ow^n  head  this 
double  ruin.  Break  not  away  from  the  cords  with 
which  God  himself  would  draw  you  to  salvation.  De- 
feat not  the  prayers  of  a  father's  faith,  and  of  a  mother's 
love.  Compel  not  the  mercy,  that  waits  to  save  you, 
to  depart,  and  to  give  you  up  to  the  hand  of  justice,  as 
one  who,  from  the  gates  of  heaven,  would  thrust  himself 
down  to  the  despair  of  hell. 

Children  of  the  covenant ;  ye  who  were  in  your  infan- 
cy dedicated  to  God  ;  your  parents  by  their  acts  bind 
you  in  secular  matters.  God  and  the  laws  of  society 
have  given  them  this  prerogative,  not  for  their  advantage, 
but  for  yours.  It  is,  then,  no  unprecedented  thing, 
when  you   are  by  your  parents   given   up  to  God  and 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  199 

sealed  with  his  seal.  He  claims  this  right  in  you  ;  the 
neglect  of  your  parents  would  not  have  altered  his  claim. 
But  would  you,  if  you  could, — that  when  God  had 
graciously  given  his  covenant  for  their  advantage  and  for 
yours,  that  they  had  thrown  away  ihe  covenant  and  de- 
nied you  the  seal  1  Choose  you,  then,  to  throw  away 
proffered  blessings,  and  having  thrown  them  away,  to  take 
your  lot  with  the  world,  with  no  portion  but  in  the  uncove- 
nanted  mercies  of  God  1  Had  a  rich  friend,  in  your  in- 
fancy, offered  to  leave  you  an  estate,  if  your  parent  would 
in  your  behalf  undertake  the  trust  and  execute  the  forms, 
would  you  that  your  parent  had  refused  the  gift ;  and 
especially  if  the  condition  of  the  gift  had  obliged  him 
carefully  to  train  you  up  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord  ^  Surely  you  would  not  be  so  unwise. 
Is  the  case  altered  when  God  himself  is  the  giver,  and 
proffers  a  richer  portion  than  all  the  kingdoms  of  this 
world  1  Is  God  a  foe  to  offer  this  covenant '(  Is  your 
parent  a  foe  to  take  and  seal  it  %  That  seal  is  to  you  a 
token  no  less  of  privilege  than  of  obligation.  Will  you 
throw  these  promises  of  God  away  ?  Will  you  deter- 
mine to  renounce  your  baptism,  and  render  it  nulll 
You  may  ;  but  not  with  ordinary  guilt ;  especially  if 
from  infancy  you  have  been  the  child  of  prayers  and  tears 
to  God  for  your  salvation.  Oh  !  how  rich  this  boon  of 
the  covenant  and  its  seal,  which  thus  pleads  with  you, 
our  children,  to  be  the  children  of  your  father's  God ' 
Will  you  disavow  the  covenant  and  the  seal  1  Will  you 
disown  the  obligation  which  they  impose  on  you  to  love 
and  serve  Jehovah,  your  father's  covenant  God  ?  You 
may  be  so  infatuated  ;  but  God  will  not  for  this  release 
you  from  the  obligation.     You  may  sell  your  birthright 


200  LAW  OF  BAPTISM. 

like  Esau,  but,  like  Esau,  you  may  find  no  place  for  re- 
pentance, though  you  seek  it  carefully  with  tears. 

O,  God  of  our  fathers  !  our  covenant  God  !  Save  our 
children  from  such  a  doom  as  this  !  Seal  them  thine 
own,  by  working  in  their  souls  the  reality  of  that  which 
is  signified  by  the  outward  sign.  Make  them  thine  own 
by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  the  renewing  of  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  and  thy  name  shall  have  all  the  praise, 
for  ever.     Amen. 


DATE  DUE 

^^^^^^^^1^^ 

m 

j 

1 

GAYLORD 

PRINTEDINU.S    A. 

